Walking through the UC Berkeley campus last semester I caught a glimpse of a young woman proudly holding a sign that said "God does not exist" in big bold letters. It stood out like a sore thumb even amongst the dozens of fraternities, clubs and bake sales that were vying for students attention on the sun filled Sproul Plaza.
By the time I got to her table she was engaged in a heated conversation with a devout Christian who was passionately arguing that God had a plan for her life. She was challenging his every point with references to science, history, biblical criticism and comparative religions. "Jesus didn't even exist," she proclaimed. "God sent his only son for you," he countered. Needless to say it was a heated conversation. It was clear that neither was going to "win" the argument.
As much as I love a good debate, I began wondering what, if anything, may be a foundation for dialogue between atheists and the religious. Was there any possibility of listening to each other? What was beneath the particularities of each side? Could there be something beyond the fighting?
It should be mentioned that these identities are of course complex. Many atheists are indifferent to religion and others like Chris Stedman are doing excellent work to bridge this cultural divide. There are also lots of atheists within religious traditions such as Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism. Furthermore, there are several terms that atheists and religious people use to describe themselves. In other words there is no simple "atheist" or "believer." Some religious people are theists while others reject a interventionist God and are panentheists. Many non-believers identify as agnostics, atheists and skeptics or a combination of these. It's a complex landscape for sure.
The existence of pro-religious atheists and atheists who are religious is evidence that religion and atheism don't necessarily have to be in conflict. However, the mainstream sentiment, fueled by the most vocal New Atheists and ardent religious fundamentalists is still one of hostility and animosity to say the least. Unfortunately, short slogans like "religion is evil," and "atheists are going to hell" still frame the discussion.
Having engaged with these issues for several years now I believe we can evolve the discussion beyond the knee jerk responses that currently define it. Hopefully the following suggestions can help lay the foundation for future dialogue.
The Religious Task
From my perspective the most appropriate religious response to atheism in America is to genuinely engage with atheists and ask questions. What's it like to be you? What challenges do you face living in society that is predominantly religious? How are your values, perspectives and practices marginalized in the larger culture where religious language and thinking dominates? What would you never like to hear said to you again? These simple inquiries should be foundational for people who are immersed within traditions that emphasize compassion, empathy and understanding.
Living in a society of Christian and religious hegemony means that the language, customs, practices and beliefs of believers are privileged over atheists or agnostics. Even Buddhists, most of which are actually atheists, or others affiliated with a religious tradition are seen as more moral than self-described atheists.
Religious and spiritual people need to understand that atheists face discrimination and are marginalized in America. Until recently they were the most disliked group nationwide, a title now owned by the Tea Party. Polls indicate that Americans are more likely to vote for a Muslim for president than they are an atheist, which is telling given the current state of Islamophobia. Many believers see atheists who don't accept their God as immoral or tools of Satan and thus quickly dehumanize them.
For those who are unaware, two recent cases are prime examples of how atheists can face intense discrimination.
In January, Rhode Island State Rep. Peter Polombo publicly called Jessica Ahlquist, the atheist teenager who challenged the constitutionality of a large prayer that hung in her high school, an "evil little thing." She received hate mail, rape and death threats and was told to get out of Rhode Island by angered citizens.
When Damon Fowler challenged the constitutionality of his high school sponsored prayer during his high school graduation commencement he faced similar attacks. A teacher publicly demeaned him, his parents threw him out of their house and cut off financial support and he was physically threatened.
The atheist community rallied behind both of these teens by setting up scholarship funds and writing and speaking passionately in their defense. However, outside of the tightly knit atheist communities there was little support.
I know it may seem like an oxymoron to ask religious institutions or leaders to defend atheists who call for the removal of God language from government. However, so many progressive religious communities are on the front lines of battling economic injustice, racism, poverty, homophobia, sexism and other forms of marginalization. There's no reason that we as progressive spiritual or religious leaders can't address the dehumanization that atheists face -- regardless of whether we agree with their views about God. Furthermore, these issues intersect. For example, a religious community concerned about racism shouldn't ignore the complexities of racism in the case of black atheists.
One of the leading conservative Christians, John Hagee, recently angrily preached in a sermon that atheists should leave the country and that the United States is a Christian nation. This is of course offensive to many. If progressive religious communities stood up to this type of harassment and began taking the concerns of atheists more seriously it would be a positive step towards creating dialogue with atheists.
The Task of Atheists
Rather than attacking "religion" en mass as the many vocal New Atheists do, it would be helpful to understand the complex cultural and sociological forces that define someone's relationship to religion. Thus, in order for dialogue to occur more atheists will need to abandon the "either/or" dichotomy that so often frames the discussion.
While PZ Myers is certainly one of the more divisive and antagonizing voices in the New Atheist movement, he demonstrates an important point related to this topic in a recent post.
Myers wrote about Sikivu Hutchinson, author of "Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics & the Values Wars." He described how some in the new atheist community asked him to write a rebuttal of her call for a social and racial justice lens in the fields of science and atheism. Myers states, "She also makes the argument in that book that the black community's affiliation with religion has been an advantage for them -- it's been a 'bulwark against white supremacy and institutional racism.' He continues, "Unfortunately, I can't write a rebuttal...because she's right..."
Myers, one of the most vocal contemporary critics of all things religion, is admitting that religion is actually advantageous to communities in certain contexts. That's incredible.
If Myers and other New Atheists were to genuinely develop this further true dialogue could actually occur with religious people. Why? Because of course African Americans resisting racism isn't the only reason why religion can be advantageous to communities. There are lots of good reasons why people participate in religion -- both out of resisting oppression and in the name of building community, finding love and strengthening work for justice. Understanding these reasons and learning how to respectfully dialogue about them in relation to religion should be a central task of atheists.
Myers is unwilling to treat African-American Christianity in the same simplistic and critical way that he is willing to treat other faiths like Islam. He's stated, "Come on, Islam... It's bad enough to be the religion of hate, but to be the religion of cowardice ought to leave you feeling ashamed." I'm suspecting you won't hear any of these crude generalizations from Myers about African-American Christianity because he has now developed a sensitivity and awareness to the complexity of powers and privileges that affect it. Why can't this openness be developed in relation to Islam or other religions?
It's really not a far leap from Myers' position to embracing a more complex understanding of all religion. In the larger global context why treat African-American religion any different? Aren't religions worldwide filled with hypocrisies and revolutionary potential just as African American Christianities are? Aren't these institutions often on the forefront of resisting poverty? Providing much needed social, communal and relational support to people? Defending against the worst aspects of capitalism or other forms of oppressions all over the world? Providing safe haven for queer people in certain progressive communities? What about liberation, feminist and post-colonial movements and theologies? Can't any religious expression, in certain contexts, be advantageous to some degree?
Perhaps religion is best understood like Ibuprofen, it can cause both severe stomach bleeding as the label warns and be a tremendous aid in times of difficulty. Navigating the complexities of when and if to take it requires an open and inquisitive perspective. Questions need to be asked about context, background and history. Religion needs to be examined from a similar perspective.
Furthermore, if Myers or other New Atheists are genuinely interested in confronting issues of white and male privilege in society it necessitates working with religious communities to some degree. Why? Because in many places, as here in the U.S. in African-American communities, the Church is a central institution in the fight against those things Myers is decrying. There isn't the luxury to avoid dialogue or interfaith engagement with religious people and institutions.
At the end of the day, both religious people and atheists of all varieties have important stories to share about their experiences. These can themselves be the foundation for dialogue. However, I fear that the current landscape may be too filled with stereotypes, misunderstandings and down-right anger. If each "side" is willing to step back and listen, self-reflect and open themselves to broader positions based on what's needed then I believe we can lay the groundwork for genuine dialogue. We can all benefit from asking, "What's it like to be you?"
David Lose: Is America a Christian Nation?
Vatican Opens Dialogue With Atheists
Christian-Atheist Dialogue - YouTube
Christians and atheists start a calmer dialogue / The Christian ...
Rick
http://nogodsallowed.com
It is the Great Commision of the Bible, and a tenet of Evangelical Christian belief.
The idea that faith is a "personal matter" is one that receives criticism and even rebuke within the Evangelical Christian church. Christian are encouraged to communicate their faith at every opportunity they see presented: At work, at shool, at the bus stop, in the grocery store, etc. And the nature of their "Good News" is offensive to many people.
How people can view "strident" atheism as anything other than an assertive defense of free thought is a bit strange to me.
The New Atheists' main thesis seems to be: "Believe what you like, but keep it to yourself. And, by the way, those beliefs you've insisted on sharing may have the following political, social, psychological consequences... Perhaps you should do some more research on your position?")
I'm don't hold contempt for religion over people going to church on sundays and saying grace at dinner, or being a part of a community, or giving me blessings to be nice, I oppose religion not because of the beliefs, but what people DO with these beliefs
2 infants in nyc were held down while a 57 yr old man severed the end of their genitals, and put his mouth on the infants privates, sucking away blood, and transmitted herpes to those infants, which resulted in their death. (measures to prevent this barbaric ritual were prevented under religious pressure to government)
3 different children died over the last few months alone, because their parents refused them medical treatment for fully treatable illness.
Hate, bigotry, threats of violence from ranting preachers against gays.
Religious groups spending millions to purposefully manipulate science and position representatives on school boards to get their religions in schools.
Shuffling child molesters around from parish to parish.
I have no interest in "understanding" this, or "laying groundwork for genuine dialogue" with people like this, they're delusional and dangerous. What passively religious people need to do, is stop making excuses for the people above because they are religious too, you are *not* like the above, you're not on the "other side"
There's something... sinful about that.
Beyond that, I am a person. Not just an atheist. I am a person with feelings, hopes, and dreams like everyone else. Don't ask me about how I feel about my atheism. Ask me about how I feel about my family, my friends having their first children, dating, my career. Things I could ask of anyone else. I'm not good without God. I'm good as a person like everyone else.
You want to talk to me about atheism, let's discuss the existence of God. What does "God" even mean? Is theism true? These are very important intellectual and moral questions and we better have a just-the-facts conversation about it and get this right. If you don't want to discuss that, then seriously, just ask me about my day.
What I'd like to express is that there are countless reasons over the course of a believers lifetime that lead them to belief in God. Yes we are born into a certain culture that determines our first steps. But it's our feelings, thoughts, sensations, experiences, dreams, rationale, and yes logic that all leads one to where they are in their belief. Sometimes it changes, leaves, comes bck, stays, wavers, strengthens. In the same way if one were to say to an Italian all Italians are evil When an atheist says that all religions are evil to a Christian, a Jew, or a Buddhist, you are including that person as well.
If indeed theists have good reasons for believing, that should come out of a frank discussion of the topic of God's existence. Note that in that discussion, our feelings and dreams have nothing to do with it. It has to do with facts, either there is a God or there isn't. So far the discussion has not revealed logical thinking but rather a quality of logic that is poor relative to the rigor of the maths and sciences. The sort of pseudo-logical rationalizations of an opinion. Just so you know, atheists are going to expect truly logical arguments and aren't going to have patience for feelings or pseudo-logic.
We are not a religion.
We are not like Christianity. We are not Christians or members of similar religions for whom engaging with the other means sharing personal stories and being moved by how "true" they are. Perhaps Christians or even you, Mr, Scofield, are interested in that sort of discussion, but we are not. Because let's make this clear, we live in a Christianity-dominate society and we are not Christians. Please get that clear. We are not Christians, we do not believe God exists (and then hate him), or anything like that. We don't even share your religious narrative and attitudes at all. Get over it.
What I have to say to so-called religious atheists, i.e. Be Scofield, is that you need to stop misrepresenting the rest of us and confusing the public. Atheists for the most part are not religious, or at best are secular Jews. Moreover, I am morally outraged that in a society that hates the nonreligious nontheistic and where religion has caused so much harm you still have the audacity to call yourself religious. How dare you be complicit in that?!
Religious atheists include bare-bones Buddhist, Jains, Raellians, many Unitarian Universalists, many religious humanists, and probably others not coming to mind right now. Atheists are diverse, and have a right to be diverse.
Very good. And if all religious people adopted this attitude towards their own religiosity, there would be no conflict between the religious and the irreligious.
As an irreligious person, I can honestly say that I'm aware that there is not a single belief that I have that will almost certainly in some context be inappropriate, stupifying or even harmful. (Including this one.)
But many (not all) religious people seem to be like Ibuprofen junkies: they can't imagine life without it, they would like to promote it to everyone they know, they can't see any downside to it, and they would never dream of going cold turkey.
I'd like to meet the religious person who says "I realise I've been overdoing the religion bit recently, so I'm going to swear off my religion for a couple of months, and see how I feel."
2) What challenges do you face living in society that is predominantly religious?
3) How are your values, perspectives and practices marginalized in the larger culture where religious language and thinking dominates?
4) What would you never like to hear said to you again?
Why does this sound suspiciously like one of those ridiculous survey "getting to know you" chain e-mails that obnoxious people will occasionally forward asking what color shoes you have on and what the last thing was that you ate.
Oh, what the hell...here goes nothing:
Answers:
1) Good on good days, not so much on the bad ones. Why do you want to know?
2) Being told that the world is predominantly religious.
3) My values, perspectives and practices are not marginalized by the beliefs of others as long as I choose that they should not be marginalized. Nor will I allow my rights to be marginalized. Does that bother you?
4) I would like to never hear again that I should be given the "task" to always play nicely with people who believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent supernatural entity, (in which I do not believe) particularly by someone who believes in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent supernatural entity.
There's that done.
I didn't even get to tell you what color shoes I'm wearing.
I'm sure this will help us all get along MUCH better. : p
I also have a really hard time with the idea that LGBT community is discriminated against based on a few lines written 2,500 years ago. The Bible doesn't even come straight out and say what exactly they're against (lay with a man like a woman). And I'm even angrier that I can't say exactly what I think they meant in Leviticus because the power of the Christian Churches are to this day so strong that using straightforward, precise, simple, short and commonly used words would get this post deleted.
I hope that helps you understand this non-religious atheist.