Steven Den Beste is an athiest, yet he is unlike any athiest I have ever met in that he seems to understand theists (in the general sense of the term) and doesn’t hold their beliefs against them. As such, I have gained an immense amount of respect for him and his beliefs. He speaks with conviction about his beliefs, but he is not evangelistic.
In his latest post, he aks one of the great unanswerable questions: What am I? I won’t pretend to have any of the answers, but I do object to one thing he said. It is a belief that is common among athiests (though theists are little better):
Is a virus alive? I don’t know. Is a hive mind intelligent? I don’t know. Is there actually an identifiable self with continuity of existence which is typing these words? I really don’t know. How much would that self have to change before we decide that the continuity has been disrupted? I think I don’t want to find out.
Most of those kinds of questions either become moot or are easily answered within the context of standard religions. Those questions are uniquely troubling only for those of us who believe that life and intelligence are emergent properties of certain blobs of mass which are built in certain ways and which operate in certain kinds of environments. We might be forced to accept that identity is just as mythical as the soul. We might be deluding ourselves into thinking that identity is real because we want it to be true.
[Emphasis added] The idea that these types of unanswerable questions is not troubling or easy to answer to a believer is a common one, but I also believe it to be false. Religion is no more comforting than any other system of beliefs, including athiesm. Religion does provide a vocabulary for the unanswerable, but all that does is help us grapple with the questions – it doesn’t solve anything and I don’t think it is any more comforting. I believe in God, but if you asked me what God really is, I wouldn’t be able to give you a definitive answer. Actually, I might be able to do that, but “God is a mystery” is hardly comforting or all that useful.
Elsewhere in the essay, he refers to the Christian belief in the soul:
To a Christian, life and self are ultimately embodied in a person’s soul. Death is when the soul separates from the body, and that which makes up the essence of a person is embodied in the soul (as it were).
He goes on to list some conundrums that would be troubling to the believer but they all touch on the most troubling thing – what the heck is the soul in the first place? Trying to answer that is no more comforting to a theist than trying to answer the questions he’s asking himself. The only real difference is a matter of vocabulary. All religion has done is shifted the focus of the question.
Den Beste goes on to say that there are many ways in which atheism is cold and unreassuring, but fails to recognize the ways in which religion is cold and unreassuring. For instance, there is no satisfactory theodicy that I have ever seen, and I’ve spent a lot of time studying such things (16 years of Catholic schooling baby!) A theodicy is essentially an attempt to reconcile God’s existance with the existance of evil. Why does God allow evil to exist? Again, there is no satisfactory answer to that question, not the least of which because there is no satisfactory definition of both God and evil!
Now, theists often view athiests in a similar manner. While Den Beste laments the cold and unreassuring aspects of athiesm, a believer almost sees the reverse. To some believers, if you remove God from the picture, you also remove all concept of morality and responsibility. Yet, that is not the case, and Den Beste provides an excellent example of a morally responsible athiest. The grass is greener on the other side, as they say.
All of this is generally speaking, of course. Not all religions are the same, and some are more restrictive and closed-minded than others. I suppose it can be a matter of degrees, with one religion or individual being more open minded than the other, but I don’t really know of any objective way to measure that sort of thing. I know that there are some believers who aren’t troubled by such questions and proclaim their beliefs in blind faith, but I don’t count myself among them, nor do I think it is something that is inherent in religion (perhaps it is inherent in some religions, but even then, religion does not exist in a vacuum and must be reconciled with the rest of the world).
Part of my trouble with this may be that I seem to have the ability to switch mental models rather easily, viewing a problem from a number of different perspectives and attempting to figure out the best way to approach a problem. I seem to be able to reconcile my various perspectives with each other as well (for example, I seem to have no problem reconciling science and religion with each other), though the boundries are blurry and I can sometimes come up with contradictory conclusions. This is in itself somewhat troubling, but at the same time, it is also somwhat of an advantage that I can approach a problem in a number of different ways. The trick is knowing which approach to use for which problem; hardly an easy proposition. Furthermore, I gather that I am somewhat odd in this ability, at least among believers. I used to debate religion a lot on the internet, and after a time, many refused to think of me as a Catholic because I didn’t seem to align with others’ perception of what Catholics are. I always found that rather amusing, though I guess I can understand the sentiment.
Unlike Den Beste, I do harbor some doubt in my beliefs, mainly because I recognize them as beliefs. They are not facts and I must concede the idea that my beliefs are incorrect. Like all sets of beliefs, there is an aspect of my beliefs that is very troubling and uncomforting, and there is a price we all pay for believing what we believe. And yet, believe we must. If we required our beliefs to be facts in order to act, we would do nothing. The value we receive from our beliefs outweighs the price we pay, or so we hope…
I suppose this could be seen by Steven to be missing the forest for the trees, but the reason I posted it is because the issue of beliefs discussed above fits nicely with several recent posts I made under the guise of Superstition and Security Beliefs (and Heuristics). They might provide a little more detail on the way I think regarding these subjects.
“Steven Den Beste is an athiest, yet he is unlike any athiest I have ever met in that he seems to understand theists (in the general sense of the term) and doesn’t hold their beliefs against them.”
Heck, I’ve never met an atheist in person who didn’t fall into a righteous fury the moment anyone else mentioned anything even vaguely religious.
An atheist once told me, “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair style.” A mis-quote, but one that’s far more accurate than the original, in my opinion.
Atheism may not be a religion, but many atheists are more rabidly evangelical fundamentalist than any of the “relgious nuts” they so gleefully and often maliciously scorn. They in effect cause Atheism to act as their religion, because they build their lives so tightly and obsessively around it.
The original post said
” Not all religions are the same, and some are more restrictive and closed-minded than others. ”
I would submit that once a religion ceases to be restrictive and closed minded, it also ceases to be a religion in anything but name. Once practitioners begin to pick and choose the parts they will follow and the parts they will ignore, they are no longer really members at all.
Christianity is dead for this very reason, Judaism is now more a system of traditions and ethics than a real theology. Of the “big three”, only Islam has any measurable true following.
At the point where the world is safe from Muslim fundamentalism, Islam will have ceased to exist as well.
I wonder if you have read any of the writtings of Daniel Dennet. I’ve found Consciousness Explained to be very interesting. ‘Darwins Dangerous Idea’ covers some of the other areas in your post. ‘Freedom Evolves’ is what I’m reading now. At least he has taken the problems you bring up and give some rigor to them.
Tatterdemalian wrote:
“Heck, I’ve never met an atheist in person who didn’t fall into a righteous fury the moment anyone else mentioned anything even vaguely religious.”
How do you know? I presume you’ve met numerous people who don’t “fall into a righteous fury” at the mention of anything religious. How can you tell whether these people are atheists or not? Many of us keep quiet about our lack of religious beliefs, because it seems to either anger people or make them try to convert us.
I prefer to use the term “non-religious,” because most people seem to share your belief that “atheist” means “militantly anti-religious.” (And some seem to think that it’s a synonym for “Satanist.”) But unless I’m asked directly, I don’t volunteer any information at all about my lack of religion. Hardly anyone who knows me is aware of it. Perhaps some of the people you know are doing the same thing . . . for the same reasons.
I agree with Pat there. I am an (implicit – there are at least two kinds) atheist and have always called myself such because it’s an accurate label for my stance on religion. However, I have found throughout my life that so many people use the word “atheist” as a pejorative term. Hence the “Bright” (ugh) movement, and the preponderance of non-religious folk using terms such as “agnostics” (although atheism and agnosticism address two separate questions: belief and knowledge), non-theists, unreligious, etc.
I’ve been a senior officer of a campus atheist organization for a few years now, and there is a much larger non-profit atheist organization for the city. I have met a few “fundamentalist” atheists…perhaps 3. Although I feel their harsh attitude is directed more towards the construct of religion, not belief, plus many of them are older atheists who have had to put up with a great amount of prejudice towards their beliefs throughout their lives. That doesn’t always make for a very cheery person, unfortunately. They are few though.
Tom writes:
“Atheism may not be a religion, but many atheists are more rabidly evangelical fundamentalist than any of the ‘relgious nuts’ they so gleefully and often maliciously scorn. They in effect cause Atheism to act as their religion, because they build their lives so tightly and obsessively around it.”
That’s not religion as such; it’s just fanaticism. One can be fanatical about religion, or atheism, or political activism, or the Open Source movement, or any number of other memes.
“I would submit that once a religion ceases to be restrictive and closed minded, it also ceases to be a religion in anything but name. Once practitioners begin to pick and choose the parts they will follow and the parts they will ignore, they are no longer really members at all.”
By that definition, there are no genuine religions at all. You can search the entire planet from pole to pole, and you will never find any religious sect whose members are all in perfect agreement about every single detail of their faith. There will always be differing interpretations. That’s just human nature.
“Christianity is dead for this very reason, Judaism is now more a system of traditions and ethics than a real theology.”
I find this sort of statement hard to take seriously. There are many millions of people in the world who think they are Christians and Jews; who are you to tell them that they aren’t? What, exactly, is the CORRECT version of Christianity, and how do you know? I submit that this definition of religion is so narrow and rigid as to be completely irrelevant to religion as it is actually practiced by human beings.
“At the point where the world is safe from Muslim fundamentalism, Islam will have ceased to exist as well.”
Okay, if you say so. There will still be plenty of people who consider themselves Muslims. Feel free to tell them that they’re not, if you want. I don’t think you’ll convince many of them.
Like any other human institution, religions evolve and change over time. This is not proof that they are dead; it’s evidence that they are alive. (All living things change constantly; that’s one of the main points of the Steven Den Beste essay that started this whole discussion.) Show me a religion that isn’t changing, and I’ll show you a religion that has no living practitioners and exists only in the form of written records and artifacts.
Tatterdemalian, Pat makes a good point, and SDB is an excellent example of the non-evangelical athiest (another example is the commenter Spencer, whom I have known for a long time and who speaks with conviction about her beliefs, but doesn’t trample on mine in the process:) On the other hand, the grand majority of athiests I’ve run into are “militantly anti-religion”. It seems that athiests, like every other group, have their good folks and their assholes, and the assholes are always more visible than the good folks…
And Tom, Pat has a good point for you as well. Pat’s making my job easy, it seems:P
I’ve never heard of Daniel Dennet, but it’s hardly surprising that someone is exploring the issue in detail…
I think the problem is that many atheists are actually ANTI-theists. People who use the term atheist are often very much opposed to theism of any kind. Being “anti” is inconsistent with what the “a” indicates�meaning that the person is neutral on the issue to the point of it being irrelevant. We understand that someone who is asexual isn’t against sexuality in others; they are “devoid of sexuality” for themselves. Same with atheism.
The Webster’s definition of atheist is: “one who believes that there is no deity.”
The word “belief” should be a clue to some folks, but they miss it. Further, it does not say “one who is against or opposed to theism” which is what many who call themselves atheist actually are.
I see that someone uses non-religious. That’s good compromise to lesson the confusion, but I think that atheists who are anti-religion ought to choose a different label.
Connie, I think Webster’s may have it just slightly wrong. An atheist is someone who does not believe in any diety. A radical athiest is someone who believes there is no diety.
It’s a subtle point, I think. Agnostics simply admit they don’t know, and may very well go through the motions of following some religion without actually holding a belief in the diety or dieties in question.
Personally I consider that useless – if you don’t believe, your going through the motions will not “save” you.
“By that definition, there are no genuine religions at all.”
Dang, picked that up all by yourself? Sweet. I was afraid I hadn’t been clear.
“You can search the entire planet from pole to pole, and you will never find any religious sect whose members are all in perfect agreement”
I find such statements impossible to take seriously, because they show a blatantly self-serving and weasley attitude.
It isn’t a matter of “agreement” or “interpretation” at all. It’s a matter of following one’s holy book faithfully. So if you (generic “you”) call yourself a Christian but say, “My God would never condemn homosexuality.” then you’ve choosen, for social or personal convenience, to ignore a portion of your religion. You are no longer following your faith truly, so you are no longer really a Christian.
If you call yourself a Muslim and you figure the parts of the Koran that say infidels and apostates should be killed or enslaved just isn’t for you, . . . you see where I’m going.
Religion, by its nature, is restrictive. If you choose to violate, ignore or live outside of those restrictions, then you are not practicing whatever religion you may claim as your own. Self-righteous indignation may cow some who point this out, but it won’t change the truth of it.
Religions are not literally living things and they do not change, nor do they grow or evolve over time. What changes is the convenience of their rules and requirements. What changes is our need to fudge in order to accomodate behavior that violates what our religion forbids or frowns upon.
If your religion doesn’t suit your tastes and you want to change this part and that part to fit with your personal life views, cool. I don’t really care. But why keep pretending that if you pick and choose the parts you like and will follow and the parts you find distasteful and will not follow, that you are still really a member of that religion at all? Seems cowardly to me.
meh, the psyco athiests are always x-christians of one type or other, they had fairy tales forced down their throat when they were little and they resent it, thus the psyo-reaction.
you would be a little psycotic too if people shoved down your throat the idea of there being no god when you KNOW there is one.
I’ve met plenty of athiests that were not psycotic, but they also akk had limmited contact with religion in their youth
So if I disagree with the Bible in any one bit, I’m not a Christian? Then you must not be a Christian.
“It is by grace ye are saved, not of works, lest any man should boast.”
There is a very few points that you must agree on to become a Christian. 1)Jesus is Eternal God 2)I’m a sinner 3)Jesus took my punishment 4)Ask for the free gift of eternal life.
One can have all manner of incorrect views and become a Christian.
Tadeusz
You seem to have missed a key point regarding atheism: It is not a system of beliefs.
More exactly, atheism can take two forms: Belief in the lack of god(s), and lack of belief in god(s). These are sometimes referred to as “strong atheism” and “weak atheism” respectively.
Strong atheism is a belief system, and it’s what gives rise to the evangelical (and often agressive) atheists you refer to. Weak atheism is the absence of a belief system. It does not say “Your god is false”, but merely “Show me the evidence for your claims”. There are plenty of “weak” atheists around; you just don’t notice them because they tend not to bother getting into arguments with theists.
Den Beste (like me) is also a scientific materialist, and that is a belief system, albeit a mathematically minimal, thoroughly tested, and extremely useful one. (Essentially it says (1) the Universe exists (materialism), and (2) it follows consistent rules (science). That’s it.)
Actually, the question ‘What am I?” *is* answerable; the answer is “That which asks the question.”
As to the characterizations regarding religion and change, it appears to me that they are founded upon two inaccurate, though common, presuppositions: 1), that only the identical beliefs of *groups* of people qualify as religions, not those of individuals themselves, and 2) that ‘writ’ *per se* is inherently superior to *direct* personal revelation.
I’m an agnostic for two reasons: 1) because I have not knowingly received direct personal revelation from a deity, and 2) because I have found no valid and supportable grounds for me to assert objectively that *no one* has.
However, the beliefs of people who believe that they *have* received direct personal revelation are indeed religions. Even if nobody else agrees with them.
And in my experience with discussing such matters, I have yet to encounter a valid and supportable *external* proof that writ supersedes direct personal revelation.
Tom, your sarcastic and sneering tone does not help your case. If you really want to convince me or anyone else, you’ll devote your effort to presenting rational arguments, not making ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you.
Let me try to state my objection to your views in a simpler and more straightforward way. You seem to think that there exists somewhere a clear, comprehensive, and unambiguous definition of what a true Christian/Muslim/Jew (etc.) is, and that one can test individual claimants by simply comparing them to the definition. If they don’t match it perfectly, they aren’t Christians/Muslims/Jews.
There’s only one problem with that approach: such a definition does not exist. If you believe it does, please either post it here or tell us where we can find it. (And don’t waste our time by just pointing vaguely to the Bible or the Koran. Which book, chapter, and verse?)
Also, please provide some justification for your claim that “religion, by its nature, is restrictive.” I have had extensive firsthand experience with religious people and groups who do not behave in the narrow-minded way that you insist is inseparable from religion. No doubt you will simply dismiss my experience by saying that none of those people were REALLY religious. Well, you’re free to cling to your own personal definition of “religion” that bears no relation to the way the rest of the world uses the term. But you haven’t presented any reason why the rest of us should adopt your definition.
And your claim that religions do not change over time is pure fantasy. It completely ignores the entire history of religion as practiced by actual human beings. I challenge you to cite a single example of a religion that has NOT changed. A real religion, with actual members.
“It isn’t a matter of ‘agreement’ or ‘interpretation’ at all. It’s a matter of following one’s holy book faithfully.” Gosh, you make it sound so easy. But again, you’re simply ignoring the entire history of religion. Holy books are filled with vague, obscure, and mysterious statements. People have been disagreeing about the meaning of many parts of the Bible for millennia, and it is by no means clear who is right, or whether anyone is. Do YOU know what the Revelation of St. John means? If so, please enlighten us. Because Christians have been struggling to figure it out for many centuries.
In many cases, it’s not even entirely clear what is and isn’t a part of the holy book, and differing versions of some portions exist. Have you ever STUDIED the Bible? Are you aware of the existence of the Apocrypha? Do you know that there are two contradictory creation stories in Genesis? Have you ever compared the Synoptic Gospels and tried to figure out which one of them is the TRUE account of the life of Jesus, or whether any of them is? If you’ve resolved these difficult questions, please tell us how you did it.
Dcreeper writes: “I’ve met plenty of athiests that were not psycotic, but they also akk had limmited contact with religion in their youth”
Again, I have to ask: when you meet someone, how do you determine whether that person is an atheist? Perhaps many of the people you know are “non-psycotic” atheists; how can you tell, unless they choose to discuss the matter with you?
Some of them may even be like me. I was raised Baptist and attended church regularly when I was young — hardly the “limmited contact with religion” you refer to. Today I’m an atheist. I suppose that means I must be “psycotic”. Well, if so, my family, friends, and coworkers haven’t noticed.