Atheism or Religion: Prejudices Confronted
Filed under: Feature, General News, Guest Posts, Lead Story, Opinion, Religion — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on December 12, 2007 @ 10:05 pm CET
In this guest post, by Christine Stanley and Claudia, an atheist and a Catholic try to find common ground.
MvdG: a short intro from me. The following post is written by two loyal readers, Christine Stanley (who comments as C.Stanley) and Claudia Schaffner (who comments as Lynx). It’s inspired by the recent debates at this blog between Christians and atheists or at least non-Christians. Both believe that many prejudices exist and wanted to deal with those prejudices / explain their positions better. The result: a fascinating co-authored article. One that should be published in a first class magazine.
Christine lives in Georgia, was raised in a not-so-religious Catholic home, but - when she grew older - explored her faith, asked questions and, as a result her faith grew stronger. She’s a part-time veterinarian, but full-time mother and wife.
Claudia lives in Madrid and was - on the other hand - raised in a family of atheists going back generations; which is a rare thing. She’s a doctoral student in Molecular Biology and works full-time in a laboratory.
Introduction:
Lately, religion has been a hot topic again. This time, in addition to conflicts between different faiths, we’re seeing conflict arise between those who believe and those who do not. Our feeling is that while we have our differences and misunderstandings, which we discuss below, we also have our common ground and we must work to put that common ground ahead of our differences.
Claudia (the Non-Believer)
Christine Stanley (the Believer)
The Non-Believer
These are, by order of what I perceive to be their importance in terms of misunderstanding and frequency of appearance in discussions I’ve had.
1. Atheism is “just another religion.” This is, by far, the most frequent misunderstanding. Atheism has no doctrine; it is simply the absence of a belief in a god or gods (henceforth god/s). Nothing can be done, “in the name of Atheism” because atheism lacks any moral/philosophical groundwork.
Additionally, atheists do not claim positive knowledge of the non-existence of a god. Why not simply claim ignorance, as agnostics do? I can only give you my answer, which involves changing the word “god” for “fairies”. If you ask an adult if they believe in fairies they will say “no, I don’t”, not “well I can’t really know”. Atheists treat god/s in the same way everyone else treats all mythological creatures, with non-belief until otherwise proven.
2. Atheists “don’t believe in anything” are hopeless/egocentric. The ONLY thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god/s. This does not preclude a belief in other things (like love, or democracy) nor does it diminish any awe when contemplating everything from the vastness of the universe to the perfection of a newborn. Nor do atheists have any more trouble than theists in feeling a part of something greater than themselves or the impulse towards selflessness. I think that possibly it’s a case of projection; many theists may feel that, without god, their life would be hopeless, and assume that such must be the state of the non-believer.
3. Atheists are amoral, think “anything goes” with no “gold standard.” This is both the easiest and the hardest misunderstanding to clear up. The easiest because the proof that atheists are no less moral than theists is all around you. There is no evidence that atheists commit more crimes, nor that countries with high levels of atheism are worse off. That’s the easy part but “the gold standard” is harder because many theists believe they get their morals from their religion, while atheists do not…but many atheists also don’t think the theists are getting their morality from their religion, because of the cherrypicking of holy texts and the fact that certain “moral absolutes” have changed over time (like the position of women, or other races).
The fact is that all humans seem to have a moral compass. I think we would be better served simply allowing for that, with the theists believing it is a God-Given sense, and the atheist likely thinking it is a product of our biological and cultural evolution.
4. Atheists hate Christians and/or think they’re stupid: This is confusing atheism with antitheism. It can be forgiven, especially online, because in these days of inflamed religious rhetoric, the out of the closet atheists you’re likely to encounter will very often be antitheists, believing not just that religion isn’t true, but that it is negative. This can also be accompanied with a distaste or contempt for the religious.
This brings me to what I think is the most important point, a common ground and a universal call for everyone to calm down. Most people don’t want to harm others, or force others to their view. We can think each other mistaken without thinking each other evil. We should remember that, to quote Carl Sagan, we have one Pale Blue Dot in the universe to share, all of us. We should strive to find our commonalities and deal with the differences afterwards. I firmly believe that once we acknowledge what we have in common, what marks our differences will seem pathetic by comparison.
—————————————-
The Believer
My advice to fellow religious believers:
Atheism and agnosticism are not by definition anti-Christian or antitheist creeds. We should, and must, separate those who simply don’t believe from those feel that no one ought to to believe (or to be able to profess our faith.) In instances where secularists do promote an antitheist agenda, call them out on it but be clear on who you are opposing and why.
We should expect and demand tolerance from non-believers; the second clause of the First Amendment affirms this right. We should also though always extend the same tolerance to nonbelievers. Neither the law nor our religious tenets should cause us to presume a lack of morality among nonbelievers. In fact, our religious beliefs teach us that we are not to judge others.
To nonbelievers:
Unless you want to first study theology, try to steer clear of addressing religious beliefs that you may not fully understand. Do not assume that a Christian who believes in the concept of sin is using that as a branding iron on you. “Hate the sin, love the sinner” is not just a bumper sticker slogan, it’s what many of us truly believe, and we can be completely tolerant of people whom we believe are sinners that’s actually a necessity since we’re all sinners.) We do not condemn anyone to hell; we simply reserve the right to judge behaviors as righteous or sinful.
Understand that historically Christianity has had a central role in American life and previously in European history. Despite wrongdoings, the Church played a central role in development of Western concepts of freedom and justice- so we ask for credit where credit is due. Nonbelievers naturally do not want to be judged according to collective guilt for wrongdoings of some atheistic groups or cultures; the same courtesy should be extended by not judging modern Christians for the actions of their Church centuries ago or even the actions of modern day pseudo-Christians.
Understand that Christian conservatives truly do believe that our faith and churches provide the support structures for a stable and just society. You should expect us to tolerate your belief that it is otherwise, but you must articulate arguments to support your position if you expect to make any headway. Understand too that traditionally membership in Christian churches has permitted a type of shorthand for acceptance of certain moral values, and although some of us understand that you can share those values even without a Christian origin, it’s important for you to articulate that as well.
Understand also that our faith is part of our identity. It is not something to be put on on Sunday morning and taken off afterward; it informs all of our moral and ethical thinking. This fact should not disqualify our moral and ethical stances from debate on public policy; only those beliefs that truly involve worship should be removed from those discussions.
As in all disputes, each side tends to argue against the extremists on the other side. When religious believers argue that there is a war against religion, this is a backlash against antitheists. Moderate atheists and agnostics may rightfully feel that is unfair, since many or most do not oppose religious practice in society; however, it is up to the moderates in every group to speak out against the extremists among themselves. If more moderate agnostics and atheists would do so, criticizing antitheism and extreme secularism that seeks to remove religion from the public forum, it would be much easier for Christians and other religious believers to feel comfortable in finding common ground with nonbelievers.
Closing statement.
Believers and non-believers view the world from very different perspectives, so misunderstandings are to be expected. It’s quite unlikely that those on either side of this debate will convince those on the other side to convert en masse or to change their worldview to a purely secular one, or to a deeply religious one, particularly if the conversation involves bitter debate, dismissive attitudes, and accusations of evil motives and intents to ‘the others’. But through calm and honest dialogue, we can find the borders of respectful disagreements which then form the boundaries for the common area in which we all reside, with similar desires for progress and peace in the world.
1 sashal
December 12, 2007 @ 10:37 pm CETExcellent discussion.
Thank you both for interesting points of view.
And thank you, Michael for a innovative approach which makes this blog even more interesting.
2 Michael van der Galien
December 12, 2007 @ 11:53 pm CETSashal: glad you enjoyed it.
3 C Stanley
December 13, 2007 @ 1:20 am CETThank you, sashal, and thanks Michael for the opportunity (perhaps it’s not published in a first class magazine, but on a first class blog at any rate.) Also thanks to Claudia for asking me to cowrite it.
4 G Seeber
December 13, 2007 @ 7:45 am CETThere is a major flaw in this format: There is no conversation, so both articles are resting on partial strawman arguments.
5 Lynx
December 13, 2007 @ 10:29 am CETG Seeber, you do make good points, but allow me to explain the spirit in which this was done.
You’re right that conversation is not what you see here, C. Stanley and I both wrote our pieces independently, with only general guidelines of the goal. We have had many conversations (insofar as you can have one in a comments section) on the subject before, and some of our content does come out of those, and other conversations.
As to your straw man argument, I can see where you’re coming from, but disagree. Perhaps I should note that I don’t believe that all theists hold all these views or hold them to the fullest degree either. I can’t speak for Christine, but I’m fairly certain she feels the same way about atheists. However, the headings of each of my arguments are not parodies or wild exagerations. I’ve heard different versions of each and every one of those things from theists, and not only extremists. For instance, while most theists wouldn’t say that atheists are amoral, I have heard from otherwise very reasonable people that an atheist must sit down and explain every one of their moral positions, because by not being religious no position can be taken for granted. The first misunderstanding, about atheism as another form of positive belief, is extremely widespread. I don’t see these things as coming from ill intentions usually, but from lack of information, which is why I thought that we should both address some of these issues, in the interest of better relations.
6 C Stanley
December 13, 2007 @ 12:02 pm CETExactly, Lynx.
G Seeber: I think the point is that we know that the arguments against tolerance and understanding are strawmen. Each of us wrote our pieces with a different style (and each from a different perspective, of course) but we both had the goal of naming the strawmen and showing why these arguments should not be allowed to dominate discussions between believers and nonbelievers.
I can see where one might say that we go too easy some people here; I felt, for example, that Claudia (Lynx, as she’s known here) was correct in saying that atheism isn’t the same as antitheism- however, my visceral reaction to that was that she should also concede that for some people it is the same, or that for a lot of atheists the idea of religious belief is considered so unworthy of consideration that those who practice it are also dismissed as being insufficiently intelligent.
Similarly, I suspect she (or other nonbelievers) might react to my statements about the nature of sin by saying that although Christians shouldn’t judge others, many of them do- and that even our desire to apply moral judgment in the form of laws and ethics might be considered a form of judgment.
What we’re both asking, I think, is for people to recognize that no matter how common these things are, they are examples of people veering from the true core philosophy- so no matter whether they are correctly termed extremists or not, we should definitely not paint all members of that group with the broad brush.
7 old white guy
December 13, 2007 @ 1:59 pm CETall western morals flow from one source and is not atheism
8 Lynx
December 13, 2007 @ 2:32 pm CETGeez, I worked pretty hard on that essay, the least you could do was read it. No, as is unbelievably obvious, all western morals do not come from atheism. See point 1, atheism is not a doctrine, nor does it pretend to be. It’s a very VERY simply concept, I’m confounded as to why some people have such a hard time with it.
As to where all western morals actually came from, I’m assuming you’re referring to Christianity or the Bible. I disagree with that point, and would be happy to debate it at another time. The point of this post was precisely that yes, there are many points of disagreement and no, that doesn’t mean we can’t try to get along and strive to understand others viewpoints.
9 Michael
December 13, 2007 @ 4:56 pm CETI am so happy I’m not the only atheist who thinks many Christians are just fine. I just am astounded everytime an otherwise accepting, reasonable person rejects my humanity on account of my atheism.
10 C Stanley
December 13, 2007 @ 4:59 pm CETMichael: And likewise, I’m astounded when otherwise accepting, reasonable people (in fact often ones who claim to value tolerance) reject my intelligence on account of my religious beliefs.
11 SR
December 13, 2007 @ 6:59 pm CETThis is a fabulous discussion. Thank you for sharing it.If I may, though, I would like to address one point I feel was left out, which is: religion influencing public policy. I am an atheist. I consider myself to be very accepting an open about things. However, when it comes to religion influencing the government and public policy, which is rampant here in the US, I tend to become a little antitheistic. I was wondering if C Stanley and Lynx could comment on how we can all bury the hatchet, so to speak, when people’s deeply held beliefs, which some of us think are based on no more than irrational superstition, affect public policy and laws that govern our everyday lives.
12 Lynx
December 13, 2007 @ 8:24 pm CETSR, thank you for the comment. It’s a very sticky question and I’m afraid that there is no easy answer. We have a clear guideline about religion in the Constitution, religion cannot be made official policy. However, the matter becomes much trickier when we’re talking about policies that affect certain moral precepts. Some moral guidelines, in fact most of them, like not killing and not raping, are universal, no matter what "old white guy" might think, and therefore are not issues. But there are others, like for instance Gay rights or Stem Cell research where religious doctrine informs the decisions of many people. Though I will probably take a different position than many religious people on these issues, I really don’t see that we can fairly prevent the influence of religion on them and remain a democratic country.
If a majority of people in the US think that Stem Cell research is immoral because of religious reasons, and vote for politicians that agree with this, then SC research will be stopped. I won’t like it, but will have to tolerate it. We can’t very well prohibit people from deciding their votes on religious grounds, though we may disagree. It wouldn’t be fair to not allow any decision that was clearly influenced by religion but allow any decision based on anything else.
All you can try to do is ensure the following of the Constitution as much as you can (though I think fighting nativity scenes and the like are much more trouble than they are worth), and attempt to educate as to those issues that where religious doctrine is at odds with your own beliefs. If you influence the minds of the people, the government will change accordingly. Such is the way of Democracy, the best system we have for now.
13 C Stanley
December 13, 2007 @ 8:57 pm CETSR: that is a great question, because in effect that’s where the ‘rubber meets the road’, isn’t it? In fact I find it interesting that the tension has increased so much since the time of Roe v. Wade, for example.
I have to agree with Lynx for the most part, that there are no constitutional grounds for preventing people from voting according to their religiously based morals. The First Amendment prohibits establishment of a state religion, that’s it.
Now, if we want to become more strict adherents to the Constitution in general, then I’d agree that we shouldn’t even have federal funding of research at all (which would nullify the arguments about whether funding certain types of research has a moral component to it). And, for example, I’d agree that there’s no Constitutional basis for prohibiting abortion at the federal level- though conceivably a right to life amendment could be added if there were enough popular support for that (public polling says otherwise.)
Another related point I’d like to make is that while you say:
you are of course taking an antitheistic position (I think you were admitting to that.) And that actually is expressly forbidden, not in the individual sense, of course (you are free to feel that way), but in the sense of the state taking an antitheistic position. The state shall neither establish nor prohibit…
In other words, it doesn’t matter if you think people’s views are irrational. You are free to try to persuade them to change their views, but you can’t say that they have less right to express their views-even through the electoral process- as you do.
14 SR
December 14, 2007 @ 3:24 am CETYou two are great! I wish we could have coffee together and discuss this at length. If you’re ever in Chicago…Oh and, C. Stanley, your entire reply is absolutely right, and I apologize for my smug tone. Now if only our leaders could carry on intelligent and respectful conversations with those they disagree with, like the two of you and everyone else who contributed.Thanks for letting me be a part of this. I learned some things.
15 C Stanley
December 14, 2007 @ 12:24 pm CETThanks, SR, and no need for apology. I do in fact understand that it must be frustrating if you don’t share the same basis for framing moral values. On my end though, it’s often difficult to separate the morality that is strictly religious from that which would have commonality with moral views held by secularists (because all of it is intertwined for me.) I attempt to do so as much as possible because in many cases I think that’s the only way to reach a true consensus.