Why I am not an anti-theist
January 31, 2012
Like any other belief group, atheism comes in a number of flavors. Yet, it seems that without fail, one group gets most of the attention and serves to define atheism for outsiders. This group is the anti-theists – those who believe that not only is there no god, but that belief in god(s) is inherently harmful for society. The anti-theists are by far the most outspoken and activist segment of atheism. Many of the most well-known atheists, from the late Hitchens to Dawkins to Penn Jilette to Ricky Gervais, would likely define themselves as such.
To a large degree I understand where these folks are coming from. I’ve read both “God is not Great” by the late Hitchens and “The God Delusion” by Dawkins (the latter of which is far more worthwhile, IMO). I’ve read about many of the bad things that religion has done – justifying slavery, triggering war, relegating women and gays to second-class status. And I think the religious folks, if they are being honest, would admit that horrible things have been done in the name of God. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone eager to defend the Inquisition or the Crusades, and we very rightly retch when radical Muslims use the Koran to excuse terrorism.
But I’m also someone who cares far more about how people act and treat each other. It is my fervent belief that being a good and decent person does not require religion. However, it is also my belief that religion is by no means antithetical to being a good person, and in fact for many spurs it. As someone who spent many years in the church, I met countless people who were given great joy by their faith and driven to be better people and improve themselves. Sure, I also met many who were the opposite – petty, judgmental, and unkind. But then, that dichotomy is found in any group.
I simply know too many people who are given incredible peace and comfort by their faith for me to consider religion an inherently bad thing. Do I disagree with their beliefs? Of course, and if the subject comes up, I’ll do my best to debate it with respect and fairness. One thing I know is that the vast majority of religious folks are not stupid, weak, or foolish. They are simply people who, in their search for truth and meaning, have come to a different conclusion than I have. I spent many years in the theistic ranks, and I see definite merit to pro-God arguments even if I now disagree.
Religion will never go away, as much as the anti-theists would like to believe. We can either do our best to live with each other, or we can live in conflict and division. I reject the culture war that many conservatives claim to exist; but I also reject the culture war that anti-theists see themselves as waging. Prayer is not a threat to me, nor are public expressions of faith, so long as neither is forced on me. And I will continue to count religious folks amongst my dearest friends.
On the bashing of atheists/agnostics
November 28, 2011
I’ve been wanting to write a post here for a long time. There have been a few ideas that have come and gone, some even to the point where I started writing… but nothing to show for it. I’ve had an on-again, off-again relationship with blogging in general. There are periods where I write regularly, other periods where I come to see it as futile and give up. But I always come back to it, and over the years I’ve realized that while I do enjoy political blogging at times, it is other subjects, particularly those of philosophy and religion, that have always better aroused my passion.
While I make no secret of my non-faith, I’m not aggressive about it either. I’m not one of those non-believers that feels the need to call those of faith stupid or ignorant. I know good people of both faith and non-faith, and I certainly count among my closest friends many who take their religious views very seriously. As a rule, I try to be respectful of others’ beliefs, given that they do not try to force them upon me, and given that they, overall, make them a better person. Faith can do this, and does do this, for millions, and to deny that would be silly.
As a holder of a minority worldview – my own views surely deserving of further explanation but essentially coming down to non-theistic agnosticism – I’m used to politicians not exactly gunning for my vote. If I’m lucky, I’ll get an off-hand remark about how both those of faith and non-faith can be good people (for all his flaws, George W. Bush was remarkably tolerant). However, I’m not expecting much. What does get to me, though, is when a politician goes out of his or her way to insult me. It is not always a calculated move, usually a passing reference to the false belief that atheists/agnostics have no values.
The example that sparked this post came when I saw this brief comment made by Newt Gingrich in a debate last month. The moment did not get much attention at the time as it is hardly out of the ordinary to hear non-religious folks denigrated during Republican political events. But in seeing this, it made me think of two things. First, how profoundly ignorant Gingrich must be to think that those who don’t have faith have no values or judgment. Secondly, how utterly contemptible he is to essentially imply those without faith are, as a rule, of poor character and completely undeserving of trust and power.
Now, certainly, from a political point of view, bashing atheists/agnostics isn’t going to cost anyone many votes, and may in fact gain them quite a few from those who are prejudiced. Certainly among Republicans, it may indeed be a mainstream, majority belief that atheists are no better than Muslims – perhaps even worse. So in the grand scheme, Newt’s comments will not hurt him, if they have any effect at all. But it does, to me, shed some light on his character. Does he not know any non-believers in his personal life? If he does, does he treat them with suspicion? Or is he just throwing red meat to a base that is largely convinced that secular humanism is a force of Satan?
Throwing rocks at non-believers tells me a lot about a person. It says that person is willing to insult and slander one group in order to feed the worst instincts of the larger group. It says that person has not even bothered to understand or get to know non-believers. It says that person can and would prejudge those that they hire based on their faith and religious background. In the end, it says they are a fool – a small-minded person who simply cannot fathom how one can come to the conclusion that God does not exist without then becoming a mass murderer or rapist.
Whether or not believers like it, there are millions of us out there who find our answers and contentment outside of the cathedral, mosque, and temple. By many measurements non-belief is among the fastest growing groups in America. By no means at all does this mean religion is threatened. But it does mean that sooner or later, politicians will have to come to grips with the idea that we are out there. The sooner they shed their preconceived notions, the sooner they will learn how to connect with people regardless of their religious views or lack thereof.
Emotionalism vs. reason
August 26, 2010
One of the enduring things one must remember in politics is that every actor, whether conservative, liberal, or otherwise, is at base a human being. This fact is lost when many refuse to acknowledge the basic humanity of opponents. It is also lost when we don’t realize that as human beings, we are prone to make judgments based on things outside the realm of principles and logic. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing, but regardless, it is a fact of life.
Much can be said about this tendency to forget basic human nature. In the course of debate, it is sometimes common to both ignore the nature of opponents, or to impute to them the entirety of human failings while ceasing to be honest about one’s own. This is true on both the Left and the Right. Both sides are guilty of attempting to portray adversaries as either cold and calculating, or as enslaved to basal emotions. Each tactic serves as an effort to gain the moral high ground.
As responsible people, though, it is important that we try to avoid these tools as much as possible, and recognize the human nature of both our rivals and ourselves. We need to realize that all sides are both served and undermined by emotions and human needs and desires. While it is certainly not possible to remove ourselves from this equation, I think it is important that we at least try to keep a clear head, come back to our core beliefs, and try our darndest to make decisions based on these principles instead of our passions.
I think the “Ground Zero Mosque” debate provides an excellent example of this. Both sides have reacted and acted with much emotion, quite understandably. When the subject of 9/11 is brought up, it very reasonably brings up all manner of feelings, hearkening back to that dark day and the pain it still causes. Because of this, the debate has been very heated and personal. Leftists have tried to demonize conservatives by concluding that their objections are not out of genuine feelings but rather out of nascent Islamophobia. And conservatives have reacted with great passion, in the process saying some regrettable things and falling prey to emotionalism and pandering.
I can’t say much about the Left – their reasons for dehumanizing the Right are clear. It is a well-known tactic for liberals to assume they have a monopoly on both reason and compassion. But I do wish to say something to my conservative friends. Try, as best as you can, to remember the things you stand for. Things like treating all religions equally, not blaming the group for the actions of the few, being welcoming to all peoples, and standing for rights even for people who may disregard and despise those rights.
If we can do this, we can cool the fires that have fueled some very troubling, and yes, anti-Muslim statements. I don’t believe for a second that most conservatives hate all Muslims. But far too often in this debate we have tolerated and participated in widespread condemnation of the entire faith. The passions that this debate bring forth are understandable and healthy. But we are even better served by a cool head and sticking to our principles.
Stepping back from the mosque debate
August 23, 2010
It’s official – the mosque debate has gone too far, gotten too ugly, caused far too much anger. People who would otherwise be civil to each other have said nasty things. I myself have been guilty of this, as have several friends.
I think it’s time for all of us to step back for a minute and come to some realizations. Most importantly, it has become clear that the ideological gulf between conservatives and libertarians is nearly uncrossable. The two sides just don’t get each other. To a conservative, the mosque is clearly offensive and worth protesting. To a libertarian, this outrage is puzzling and, to many, troubling. Many on “my side” have in frustration come to the conclusion that it must be due to anti-Muslim feelings. But this cannot be the case, as far too many otherwise good people oppose the mosque.
My feelings on the subject are simple – it comes down to a matter of rights and tolerance. While the majority of conservatives are not protesting the rights issue, they are clearly making a judgment that the mosque is “not welcome” in the Ground Zero area. The reasons for this are many, but it basically comes down to seeing the mosque as an affront to those who died on 9/11. I don’t agree with this take, but that’s how they feel. And it has much more to do with the still-raw emotions of 9/11 than it does with a categorical dislike of all Muslims.
I understand these emotions. But I believe we need to take a step back, if we possibly can. We need to direct our anger at the subhuman monsters that did 9/11, and those that supported it. The builders of the “Ground Zero Mosque” have no relation to this. While we rightfully balk at the imam’s refusal to condemn Hamas, and his statements suggesting America is partly to blame for 9/11, we can’t let ourselves have a double standard when it comes to free speech. He has the right to those views, and we can’t demand more of Muslims that we would of other Americans. For example, there are many Americans who say we share some part of the blame for 9/11, including conservative icon Glenn Beck, as pointed out by the Daily Show. And yet we don’t demand they recant it or risk being protested.
All of this is to say my feelings on the subject are pretty set, and so are those of conservatives. None of us is going to budge, and every argument is going to end up with one side calling the other insensitive or intolerant. Neither is true, of course. Conservatives by and large don’t hate Muslims and libertarians are for the most part decent people. We just can’t see eye to eye on this subject. So I think it’s time to move on and focus on what we DO agree on – opposing Big Government and supporting the freedom agenda. Oh, and kicking Democrat butt in November!
