More thoughts on Atheism
Those who know me know I suffer from what Richard Dawkins would call religious affliction. I often spend a lot of time thinking about it. After all, 1 Peter 3:15 says we should be ready to answer anyone who asks about it.
Over the weekend my sister read me a short passage from Why I am a Christian. This passage argues that the atheist is an artificial product. No person is born an atheist. There is no nation on earth that has spontaneously evolved into an atheist nation. Atheism is a position held by a small minority of highly educated people. This position is either developed through great effort by themselves or by the actions of their parents.
So I let my mind go on this. It seems to be quite accurate. In Africa, people worship the ancestors, for no reason anyone can think of. The ancient pagans worshiped gods, so did the Romans and the Norse. Everywhere I look I find examples of the opposite happening. It would seem that people are not born atheist, they become atheist. Without a conscious effort everyone else seems to lapse into religion by default.
Some people try to argue the opposite, saying that a little baby certainly isn't religious. This observation in itself is accurate, but an atheist is not defined as someone who doesn't know, but as someone who is already convinced of his position. Others try to argue that the default state is agnosticism, but I think that is wrong too. The definition of agnosticism is someone who claims that we CAN NOT know. Once again the agnostic is convinced of his position. A baby is born in neither of these states, but it will develop certain believes. The atheist blames all of this on indoctrination by the parents. I don't really have a good counter argument to that view, other than that it seems too simplistic and cannot account for religions springing up all over the place, and that atheism itself requires it's share of indoctrination.
The only options that remain is either that there is a God and our intuition is right, or there is no God and we all (or at least most of us, if you insist) suffer from this affliction. This is a logical deduction, one that I'm sure will be refuted by some clever bloke who can think of a third option. Personally I believe the former to be correct.
My mind drifted further on the atheist. From personal experience I find them to be exactly how Hallesby describes them. They are well educated people. The rely on scientific evidence wherever they can. They are generally quite rational. I also find that they are proud, closed minded and intolerant.
Why do I say that they are proud? Their education and the perceived backing of science makes them think they know better. If it isn't "science" it is inadmissible, and their hero (science) is untouchable. Why do I say closed minded? If you try to reason with them, their response amounts to "rubbish" or they call you an "IDiot". Clever use of the acronym "ID" in that one at least. Intolerant? Read the average forum post on Richard Dawkins's official website.
Would you believe it, these guys are pledging to send a copy of The God delusion to every member of the british parliament. The last time we (humanity that is) forcefully tried to get rid of religion (Marxism) we lost.
If nothing else, I think this at least serves as an example that the grass is brown on both sides of the fence. The problem is not religion. The problem, as my friend Jonathan always says, is that people are "kak".
Over the weekend my sister read me a short passage from Why I am a Christian. This passage argues that the atheist is an artificial product. No person is born an atheist. There is no nation on earth that has spontaneously evolved into an atheist nation. Atheism is a position held by a small minority of highly educated people. This position is either developed through great effort by themselves or by the actions of their parents.
So I let my mind go on this. It seems to be quite accurate. In Africa, people worship the ancestors, for no reason anyone can think of. The ancient pagans worshiped gods, so did the Romans and the Norse. Everywhere I look I find examples of the opposite happening. It would seem that people are not born atheist, they become atheist. Without a conscious effort everyone else seems to lapse into religion by default.
Some people try to argue the opposite, saying that a little baby certainly isn't religious. This observation in itself is accurate, but an atheist is not defined as someone who doesn't know, but as someone who is already convinced of his position. Others try to argue that the default state is agnosticism, but I think that is wrong too. The definition of agnosticism is someone who claims that we CAN NOT know. Once again the agnostic is convinced of his position. A baby is born in neither of these states, but it will develop certain believes. The atheist blames all of this on indoctrination by the parents. I don't really have a good counter argument to that view, other than that it seems too simplistic and cannot account for religions springing up all over the place, and that atheism itself requires it's share of indoctrination.
The only options that remain is either that there is a God and our intuition is right, or there is no God and we all (or at least most of us, if you insist) suffer from this affliction. This is a logical deduction, one that I'm sure will be refuted by some clever bloke who can think of a third option. Personally I believe the former to be correct.
My mind drifted further on the atheist. From personal experience I find them to be exactly how Hallesby describes them. They are well educated people. The rely on scientific evidence wherever they can. They are generally quite rational. I also find that they are proud, closed minded and intolerant.
Why do I say that they are proud? Their education and the perceived backing of science makes them think they know better. If it isn't "science" it is inadmissible, and their hero (science) is untouchable. Why do I say closed minded? If you try to reason with them, their response amounts to "rubbish" or they call you an "IDiot". Clever use of the acronym "ID" in that one at least. Intolerant? Read the average forum post on Richard Dawkins's official website.
Would you believe it, these guys are pledging to send a copy of The God delusion to every member of the british parliament. The last time we (humanity that is) forcefully tried to get rid of religion (Marxism) we lost.
If nothing else, I think this at least serves as an example that the grass is brown on both sides of the fence. The problem is not religion. The problem, as my friend Jonathan always says, is that people are "kak".
posted by ispburger at 8:33 am
3 Comments:
The most obvious argument that I can make is that the fact that we naturally gravitate towards a belief system - be it god, gods, or even witches - does not suggest that any of the above exist, it merely suggests that we have a peculiar propensity to believe in the supernatural. Dawkins makes a particularly strong case for this in Chapter 5 of The God Delusion.
I'm not sure that atheism is always a conscious decision - I grew up in an entirely non-religious environment, and was given the freedom to make up my own mind on the matter. Despite that, I don't remember a time when I wasn't atheist - it has always seemed the most logical position to me. I admit that many children do naturally tend to believe in something, but that's just the way their minds work. Children also quite naturally believe in the tooth fairy, the boogie man and monsters under their beds, yet we wouldn't for a second argue that any of the above exist.
Sure, atheists aren't perfect either - you do find atheists who are just as intolerant of others as many religious people are. However, I would imagine that (statistically) atheists are a great deal more open minded that religious types.
Personally, I don't see the problem with basing an argument on science, logic or reason - the only other common basis for an argument is faith, which does not equate with fact. I can have as much faith as I like that the world is flat, yet that will not make it so.
I would agree that people aren't born explicitly atheist, in the sense of actively believing that there is no supernatural. I think that it would actually be correct to say that the default state is agnosticism of the "I don't know" type - "agnostic" can refer to either the "I don't know" or the "we can't know" positions.
I think you fall into the trap of assuming that since you can't conceive of people being born atheists, that it doesn't happen. As I was growing up it never really occurred to me that there might be a higher power. I suppose one might argue that it was thanks to my parents working hard to indoctrinate me; but I really don't recall them ever even discussing it.
As to the question of atheists being proud/intolerant/closed-minded: I don't think the members of Richard Dawkins' site forum are really representative of atheism in general. Dawkins is the most vociferous and anti-religious atheist in the public sphere; his site will naturally attract people of a similar bent. Every group has its proud and intolerant members, and they are the ones who usually get noticed.
In terms of closed-mindedness: is anyone really open-minded about their core beliefs? The fundamental beliefs that one bases one's whole life on are not usually things that one is willing to change. Sometimes it seems to me that atheists are expected to be more open-minded that religious believers: atheism is not just a vacuum of belief, waiting to be filled. Do we seriously expect a committed Christian to be open-minded about the possibility that he's wrong and God doesn't exist?
Some of the problems that occur in debate that make atheists seem closed-minded or proud arise from two causes: firstly, that most atheists have heard (and, at least to their own satisfaction, debunked) all the common arguments for the existence of God; indeed, they have heard them many times before. Thus, atheists may casually dismiss some such argument, not because they are closed-minded (though it may appear so), but because they have repeatedly considered and found wanting such an argument in the past.
Secondly, much as many believers find atheism incomprehensible, many atheists find it perplexing that intelligent people believe things that are (to them) illogical . This perplexion may quite often (particularly in written communication) seem to be pride or intolerance.
I suppose that, really, just as it is quite unfair to generalise (as Dawkins does) that all religion is harmful and malevolent, it is also unfair to generalise that all atheists are proud and intolerant, or that they are really just suppressing some latent supernatural belief.
PS: the failure of Marxism has very much to do with economic policy and very little to do with its policy of state atheism!
All the points made in the comments are well thought through and accurate. I made a mistake to generalize the way I did. I still maintain that it is a good indication of the grass being brown on both sides :-)
As to my comment about Marxism: I did not mean to say that the failure of Marxism is indicative of anything. What I was referring to is that the widespread eradication of religion -- which was a very big part of marxist philosophy -- failed. As such, it would be accurate to say that we we failed the last time we tried this.
Post a Comment
<< Home