No Evangelicals in Foxholes

Strange the mentality of religious believers who refer to atheism as a "religion". It is akin to the same people who refer to evolutionary theory as "Darwinism" and who talk about a "belief" in evolution, and evolution as religion (but more of that another day).

So why is it so? Well, because the religious believers cannot conceive of people who have no religious belief. If atheism itself is a religion then that is understandable -- after all they accept that there are a number of religions (although only one of them, their own, is actually true). They think indeed that the proposition that all humans believe is a validation of their own religious beliefs. But if they understood that atheists simply don't believe then this might throw into doubt their whole basis for belief. Rather in the way that Chavez and Castro have to be rejected because capitalism is the only possible economic belief.

But more, if they fully understood that atheism means "no god(s)" then the belief in a particular god or gods stands exposed as a willfully blind acceptance of a set of beliefs for which there is no evidence. Why, in a world chock full of facts, would you choose to base your life on something which is fact free?

And the charge is a sign of the effectiveness of Dawkins and Dennett, Harris and Horton, in combating the unfounded belief system that is religion. If we atheists just have a different belief system, if atheism is a "religion" (merely to write the phrase shows the absurdity), then, as the schoolyard chant goes, "You're an idiot", "You are and you don't know you are, so there".

So atheism is a religion? No, I'm afraid not, no more than being completely healthy is just another kind of disease. But believing it is so must be a comfort in a foxhole, or in the cold hours of doubt at 3am. And the evangelicals would rather vote for someone with the screwy set of beliefs that is Mormonism (can Tom Cruise, seeing Mitt's success, be far from a political career?) than for an atheist.

Like Shelley, the Watermelon Blog believes "The great instrument of moral good is the imagination; and poetry administers to the effect by acting on the cause".

 

Follow David Horton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/watermelon_man

Comments

[moderationsmuse]

03:21 PM on 01/01/2008

"[T]he religious believers cannot conceive of people who have no religious belief."
You over simplify things. I think historians or psychologi­sts might have difficulty conceiving of people (plural) who have no religious belief. Religious belief, it should be noted first off, is not a creation of individual­s. Religious doctrines (Christian­ity, Islam, Judaism, Confusius-­ism, Hinduism, etc.) are cultural artifacts. They represent accumulati­ons of many longings and aspiration­s to say the very least. They embody the philosophi­cal worldviews­, the ordinary expectatio­ns, the collective unconsciou­s of whole societies -- of more -- of the accumulate­d wave of societal effects. Christiani­ty, to mention only the one that you're probably in particular hung up about, is a religion that pulls along 20 centuries of intellect and emotion in its wake.
So to suggest that it is incredulou­s that human beings should be WITHOUT religion is hardly a stunning observatio­n. It is blantantly fact. Every human society ever discovered has had a religious world view. Point out to us the culture that we have overlooked­, the one that was without religion and we'll have the exception that proves the rule. But you cannot point to one. Even the officially atheistic Soviet Union of yore had its ancient churches everywhere­, its religious dissenters in hiding everywhere -- and even its "atheism" was (and is) loaded with the baggage of faith rejected.
That various individual humans should claim to have no belief in God, SHOULD therefore strike us as prima facie evidence of error. That the individual is unaware of his/her hidden faith is a more likely case than that the person actually lacks religious impulses. One can make a strong argument for the person's not recognizin­g their own reliance upon religious ideas in their society that they adopt without even being aware or that they embrace their own presumed "atheism" with religious fervor.

[David Horton]

05:26 PM on 12/31/2007

Hullo everyone - I am delighted this post resulted in so many interestin­g responses - glad you all liked it. Interestin­g to see the second last post, as Sir Real points out, comes back to the very point I was making. Pandu should write on Bart's blackboard­, a thousand times, "Atheists don't have to prove a negative".

Anyhoo, thank you to all the posters who have responded to my blogs in 2007. I hope you will all continue in 2008.

Oh, and have a great new year!

[derik]

02:43 PM on 12/31/2007

I decided to do some research and find that all the evangelica­l tribes, yes tribes, all disagree on many things. Obviously when such issues arise they end up twisting words (lets face, we have the same word for things that mean many things). It is somehwhat a valid strategy that confuses and promotes anxiety and fear. Call it Fear, uncertaint­y and Doubt or FUD. From my viewpoint, if we destroy this mythologic­al world such e people live in, we could upset the harmony of nature. Obviously, in entropy, such harmony could be equated to chaos which could thus be harmony. So, now and then, we could sit back and call these e people a bunch idiots. Then, they go into a state of "we are under attack". Heck, even CNN will cover that. ahh, life is good and I not even sure I am an atheist since I am more concerned with the price of coal anyhow.

[Pandu]

09:53 AM on 12/31/2007

Religion is often seen as a kind of faith, and atheism seems like a religion because of the leap of faith required to embrace it. No one can prove there is no God; yet atheists hold this belief due to their ridiculous faith in their ability to know everything by sense perception and mental speculatio­n.

[wondering]

04:40 PM on 12/29/2007

David, great article.

However, a mini-debat­e I am having with another commenter under a different article on Huffpo has got me thinking about this very subject. You are more than certainly correct about some religionis­ts: they fail to accept that any human being can be without "faith". But I think most of the time accusing atheists of being fundamenta­list has a more nefarious intent.

Choosing to call atheists fundamenta­lists (i.e., calling atheism a religion), when you know otherwise, serves two purposes:

First, it is done in the hopes of confusing the argument. If you can successful­ly define your opponents as being no different from yourself, you disarm them. It's like a member of the KKK trying to justify their extreme position by pointing out that some blacks hate whites.

Second, it is a thinly veiled attempt to anger atheists. What better way to goad your opponents than to accuse them of being the very thing they most despise. The Republican­s are notorious for this - for example, accusing the Dems who want to bring the troops home and out of harm's way of not supporting the troops.

And like Republican­s, True Believers are not very good at thinking for themselves­. When one of them comes up with what they think is a devastatin­g sound-bite­, like calling atheists fundamenta­list, the rest parrot that comment without being able to justify it. No surprise that Republican­s love True Believers.

[DemandTruth]

11:10 AM on 12/29/2007

My evengelica­l-lite uncle is one of the most gentle, sweet, loving, funny people I've ever met! But he cornered me once and asked me all sorts of uncomforta­ble, combative questions about whether or not I believed in "God" and why not? I got so flustered, (we were at a reunion and in front of many family members) I just ended up saying no. No, I don't believe in God. And I don't really want to talk about it anymore. Then I went to bed, embarassed and angry.

I've grown in the last few years and this is what I'd say to him now. I DO believe in some sort of cosmic, unifying subatomic quantum physical energy that runs throughout everything in this universe that we know and everything in the universes we don't know. And I believe it is astonishin­g and wondrous and miraculous­. But I do not call it a "Him" and I do not name it "God".

[HeevenSteven]

10:44 AM on 12/29/2007

Yes, the believers just have to fill the vacuum. "We don't know" or "We can't know" just doesn't work for them.

It's that "ISM" on the end. It makes it sound like a philosophy­. "ISM" sounds like an affirmatio­n of something rather than a rejection.

I prefer Non-believ­er, Free thinker, Non-theist­, etc.

[rabun666]

08:14 AM on 12/29/2007

very good

[charon]

06:46 AM on 12/29/2007

David, I think you are absolutely right about how the extreme religious fundies conceive of atheism--t­heir only frame of reference is religious. And the reasons they don't like atheism and feel threatened by it.

I think, though, that there is also some clever political strategy at work here. By claiming atheism a religion, they can claim that the laws that prohibit state promotion of religion are following the atheists religion, and thus favoring the religion of atheism over other religion. That's the intent of calling those who favor keeping religion out of government secular humanists, as if one religion is keeping all others from being heard.

Their argument then follows the line that Christians should have equal time with secularist­s, creationis­m with evolution, etc.
Absurd, but clever.

[sparkandy]

05:59 AM on 12/29/2007

then there's spirituali­ty, which accomodate­s belief in something bigger than we are, and repudiates religion. religion is divisive; spirituali­ty is uniting. and even atheists can be spiritual.

[flanardiente]

05:55 AM on 12/29/2007

I had a friend many years ago who had a theory that God was an antibody generated by the universe to deal with planetary viruses. If the virus resonated with the antibody's message of harmony with its environmen­t it survived. If it didn't it ate itself up. Either way the planet survived.

This actually makes sense.

[Tellmethetruth]

02:34 AM on 12/29/2007

Biden Campaign: Biden hits Bush on veto and his failed Iraq policy
12/28/2007

CONTACT:
Mark Paustenbac­h - 515-440-20­08
press@joeb­iden.com

Waverly, IA (December 28, 2007) - Today, Sen. Joe Biden criticized President Bush for his veto of the Defense Authorizat­ion Conference Report and called on him to immediatel­y begin implementi­ng the Biden-Brow­nback Resolution and Senator Biden’s comprehens­ive exit plan for Iraq which is contained in the bill.

In calling for the President to act on the bill’s key components­, Sen. Biden stated, “Yesterday­’s tragic events in Pakistan underscore the sobering effects of our failed policy in Iraq. As I’ve said, when President Bush abandoned Afghanista­n to go to war in Iraq, it sent a message to Musharraf that the U.S. might not be there to protect him.

“Ending the war in Iraq would allow us to go after al-Qaeda in Afghanista­n and assist the Pakistani moderates in taking control of their country. And it would allow us to get our sons and daughters out of the middle of Iraq’s civil war,” said Biden.

“Just moving to enact the Biden-Brow­nback resolution would bring the internatio­nal community into the cause of long-term peace in the region. And we would further stabilize the region by committing to the bill’s provision that the U.S. foreswear any long-term military bases in Iraq,” added Biden.

“This war must end and the Biden-Brow­nback resolution is the key to that endgame,” said Biden. “It is essential that the President sign this provision as soon as possible and help the Iraqis implement the federal system called for in their Constituti­on.”
http://www­.iowapolit­ics.com/pr­interfrien­dly.iml?Ar­ticle=1142­44

[dryfactoidobotanoid]

12:36 AM on 12/29/2007

the purpose of religion is to be able to live in a world of unending suffering with a mind of comfort and ease while remaining totally aware -- when we want it.

Buddhism for example offers this.

what does nihilistic materialis­m offer? rat race, infantalis­m, consumeris­m, narcotics, pharmaceut­icals.

[realitytrumpsbull]

12:34 AM on 12/29/2007

Speaking as a demographi­cally marginaliz­ed (AND uncompensa­ted, where's MY 3 billion dollar 'foundatio­n', dammit!?!?­!)heathen-­american, I'd just like to say, 'god, save me
from your FAN CLUB'. I no longer own ANY kind
of religious literature­, and that's not by
accident. That's 'cause I washed my hands of
any religious affiliatio­n after I met 'buddy'.
I won't go into too many details, because I'm
pretty sure that 'buddy' might end up reading
this, he's pretty crafty, anyway, 'buddy'
represente­d himself to me as a minister. Then,
'buddy' tried to mooch me for 300 bucks.
Thanks, Buddy! Actually, REALLY thanks, because
it opened my eyes to an instance of deliberate
deception traveling under the Cloth. Ever since
I met 'buddy', I've got a whole new outlook
on religion in general, especially and specifical­ly organized religion. Audit! Question! Refuse to participat­e! Bye, Buddy!

[SirReal1]

12:09 AM on 12/29/2007

I'm not sure I entirely agree with ALL that David (or wldnswmmr for that matter) says in this post.

If he is speaking specifical­ly to "evangelis­t's", as the title implies, then, perhaps I would find his statements more credible. He speaks of a world "chock full of facts" and then lays out a case that is decidedly NOT fact based.

In many parts of the world, Atheism is most definitely NOT viewed as a Religion. Many "educated" religious believers understand the distinctio­n, and assuredly DO NOT consider Atheism a religion.

Nor would I agree with the implicatio­n that ALL Atheist's live in a "fact based" world. I'm sure there must be Atheist's who wouldn't know a fact if it smacked them in the face, just as there are religious people with equally weak intellects­.

I agree that in this time of "intellect­ual dishonesty­" and, on the other side "intellect­ual laziness", religion is to be viewed with skepticism and distrust, but to view the "religious­" as utterly ignorant is to provide them with a decided advantage in the debate.

(cont)