Last spring, I wrote a somewhat tongue-in-cheek article asking whether atheism had become a religion. Fifteen hundred (mostly) angry comments later, I realized few saw the humor. My primary goal in that post actually wasn't to convince anyone that atheism had, in fact, become an established religion, but rather to suggest that both those who believe in God and those who don't share more in common than they might suspect and therefore perhaps should enter into more productive conversation, not just about their differences but about our life together in this world we share.
In this light, it's been interesting to see the reaction to the TED Talk given by noted philosopher and atheist Alain de Botton, Atheism 2.0. In it, he argues that atheists have a lot to learn from religions, including the importance of tradition, marking time through ritual, setting up systems of education by which to teach their views, and creating sacred space, among other things. Along these lines, he is working to create a cathedral for atheists and wants to promote a version of atheism that is more respectful of religions that it nevertheless resolutely disagrees with.
While some see de Botton as an innovator and others view him as an iconoclast, I think he's only just gotten started. In fact, I hope that what comes next from de Botton and others is not just an admission but an open affirmation that atheists also have faith. Using the F-word with atheists, of course, is tricky. (What else did you think the F-word could be, by the way?) Typically, there is the assumption that "faith" can only mean belief in a particular deity, something atheists adamantly deny. But I think it's high time we take broader view of faith.
In fact, I'd argue that believing in God -- or not -- is only the first, and perhaps the easiest, element of faith. The rest deals with how one acts in the world as a result of this initial belief. That is, once you stop arguing about whether God exists or not, you've got a life to live, a life that will call for many and various decisions and actions. Those decisions and actions, in turn, spring from a worldview and system of values grounded on a lot less evidence than we might suspect.
Let's say, for instance, that you are convinced God does not exist because there is no empirical evidence for a deity and, in fact, a lot that mitigates against it. Futher, you believe that science, or at least critical reason, should be our only standard for assessing our world and evaluating claims to truth. Fair enough. But sooner or later you still have to make decisions that come from a value system that no critically rational system can fully evaluate or validate. For instance, how do you legitimate ethical decisions like distributing wealth or hoarding it, or on what basis do you promote self-advancement or discourage it? How do you assess the relative merits of honor over disgrace, courage over cowardice? How do you decide whether to disavow the brutality of a Stalin or affirm the non-violence of a Gandhi? How, ultimately, do you measure the value of a human life or determine what is worth striving and sacrificing for? Theoretical questions? Maybe, but the values that are betrayed in answering them shape most of the important decisions we make.
And that's just the point: the values that guide both our everyday and extraordinary ethical decisions are just that: values, not facts. Values aren't empirical data about what is, but rather philosophical or religious speculation about what should be. Values, that is, can be described, even evaluated with regard to the degree to which they conform to a larger philosophical or religious system. But they can't be measured or validated empirically apart from the system from which they spring. That is, there is no objective standard (the hallmark of rational critical inquiry) by which to legitimate one value system over another. So while you can certainly pose a rationally critical system by which to describe and defend values, you can never prove them by objective means.
Please don't hear me wrong. I'm not saying that atheistic systems of ethics cannot be admirable, indeed beautiful. I believe they can. Nor am I arguing that you have to believe in God to develop ethics, a position countless believers have advanced but that I don't think is sustainable. (To see a worthy attempt, though, read Glenn Tinder's 1989 Atlantic article, "Can We Be Good without God?") What I am saying is that any construction of a system of values demands at least a modicum of faith, the assertion of and belief in some grounding principles that cannot be objectively and rationally established. If this is the case, then I would implore both religious believers and Atheists alike to get over the endless bickering over whether God exists and get on with serious discussions about the important, practical, and daily life-and-death decisions about how we will live in this world together.
If we do, we wouldn't be the first. More than half a century ago, in a world still greatly overshadowed by the terror and horror of World War II manifested in the torture and execution of millions of men, women, and children, Albert Camus was invited by a group of French Dominican monks to tell them what non-Christians expect of Christians. Hesitant about telling Christians how they should act based on convictions he didn't share, Camus nevertheless suggested that even should they not be able to eradicate evil, they could at least work together not to add to it: "Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children. And," he continued, "if you don't help us, who else in the world can help us to do this?" (From "The Unbeliever and Christians," 1948, in Resistance, Rebellion, and Death.)
Here is a voice calling us, I think, to a deeper understanding of faith, one that moves well beyond arguments for or against God and focuses instead on the concrete needs of people that the religious, at their best, name the children of God. Might we do the same? In a world where women, men, and children still suffer needlessly, can we afford not to?
Christopher Lane: Two Ways Of Thinking About Agnosticism: Hitchens Vs. Dawkins
Atheism is Based on Faith? Atheism Myths: Atheists Can't Disprove ...
Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists." - YouTube
Criticism of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist - Richard Dawkins
Not surprisingly, atheists "faithfully" take more antidepressants than theists, and atheists "faithfully" have a higher suicide rate than theists. Atheists "faithfully" have lower dopamine levels in the brain than theists. How much "faith" do we have to talk about so atheists can understand their "faith"?
And, science is their "messiah". They just know that some day science will return to vindicate them and right all the wrongs that have been committed by religions. Quite a parallel when you think about it.
Naturally, you get some "fundamental" atheists who will state that they don't have to believe in science at all to be atheists. Interesting comparisons!
Do you not see? If I didn't go to the shop to buy food I would need faith to believe that when I went to the fridge I would find food. However if I did go to the shop no faith is needed, because based on evidence I would have reason to believe that there was food.
The Bible is a book written by people who didn't even know what a germ was or know that the Earth was flat, they are anonymous authors and for their claims to be held as true we would need a whole lot more information about them. As this is impossible you need faith to believe their claims. A information in a science book on the other hand can be demonstrated in real terms in laboratories or in the natural world only after rigorous testing can be asserted as fact. There is a real difference in the amount of faith you need.
And there's no faith needed in defending a position if you know the arguments.
Thanks, for your effort. I know you were being sincere. I was being "sarcastic" in what I wrote. I have degrees in religion, philosophy, humanities, and chemistry.
--anon
You don't have to remain silent. I think the same whether you are silent or writing. And, I enjoy reading most of your comments.
Look, the way religion and even theism seems to be functioning in the world is that essential aspects of the human experience, culture, and society is tied to religion and God. It doesn't need to be, but it is. When atheist soldiers need counciling over the horrors of war, they go to... the chaplain. They don't believe in God, they just want help with depression not proselytizing, a psychologist would work better, but we have tied religion to personal counseling. When people marry, they often do so... in a church. When some people think of the love and good morals, they think of... Jesus. Religion in our society is part of how we function socially. We can obtain the same functions by secular means, free of the superstition and open to atheists and theists alike, but we don't. The way to address this is NOT to replace Christian religious institutions with atheist religious institutions. It's NOT to build temples. It's to build secular institutions, where atheists and theists alike who want to do good things, help one another, live and die together can go. And to do so as people, not as atheists.
~ It only became “tongue in cheek” once you’d realized how off base you were with the entire premise.
Throughout this piece you are “special pleading” – assuming that we concur with your view of God existing, and talking past this sticking point - trying to inject your God into places where it’s totally unnecessary. e.g.
Quote, “But sooner or later you still have to make decisions that come from a value system that no critically rational system can fully evaluate or validate.”
~ Morality predates religion, no gods necessary for humankind to progress. It could easily be argued that the belief in gods has stifled the progress of the human condition.
Quote, “What I am saying is that any construction of a system of values demands at least a modicum of faith, the assertion of and belief in some grounding principles that cannot be objectively and rationally established.”
~ Still trying to shoehorn a god in there, Occam’s Razor to the rescue!
Quote, “I would implore both religious believers and Atheists alike to get over the endless bickering over whether God exists”
When theists insist upon its existence, what is the thinking person supposed to do, simply accept the highly improbable premise and continue to live in a world where belief in deities influences government policy, restricts the rights of many and divides communities?
I truly find nothing stranger than being challenged, not for my belief in something, but for my lack of belief in something. Who is the damaged party? No one. Yet, there appears to be something dangerous about my thoughts, if I'm to understand the fervor of people's arguments.
If faith is strong then have it. Nothing I believe or say should matter.
Now, if you want to talk about religion...well that's a whole other thing. That's a political institution, separate form the faith of its followers.
As an atheist, I think faith is a vice and I avoid it as much as possible. There is no virtue to it, so this entire article is a bit whacky to me. First convince me faith is a virtue, before you start arguing why I should respect it.
I think your referring to just "blind faith", i.e. completely devoid of any rationality. But I don't think that applies to most, it makes not much sense that people just choose to believe for no reasons.
The question of whether God exists is one worthy of discussion. But there is no reason to think that debating it gets in the way of serious ethical debates. If one keeps up with moral philosophy or public debates one will see such discussions (often by people who happen to be atheists) doing exactly what Lose is calling for.
zengardener0:
"The scientists tell us that the "me" and "inner voice" are constructs of the brain.
How does that support the theists? "
The theist position is that "me" is not in control; that God ("inner voice") is in control. The rationalist position is that the experienced "me" is in control; that "me" can rationally control "me"'s destiny using "me"'s "inner voice". The science supports the view that our actions are determined by the brain following the known laws of science, and not by the agent "me" acting outside of those laws. The agent "me" is a part of the causal chain created by the brain. This is must more consistent with the theist position than the rationalist position. Science has not found a physical "me" in the brain. There is no control center; no homunculus.
Regarding the article's hook, its best just to avoid using that word methinks. Atheists will always take exception to it because too many Christians play silly point-scoring word games with it. Even in the sense that you're using it in, it adds nothing to the conversation and risks causing a distraction. Why not instead start the same way that your monks did?
However, I do think it takes a whole lot of "faith" for them to be atheists. They have to have an enormous amount of faith that their choice is correct beyond all reasonable certainty. They have to have faith that one of the theories about the origins of the universe is correct.
They have to have faith that somehow a tiny little ball just randomly appeared from nowhere and exploded creating time, space, matter, and energy. Oh, I guess they could believe that nonsense that some other old universe crunched itself up and then exploded in a Big Bounce theory. Then, they have to have faith that life somehow randomly generated itself. Wow, that's a lot of random and faith. I think they do need a church.
I think when we put the ideas of science up against the ideas of christianity, anyone can see that it takes a lot more than blind faith to believe the bible to be a factual document, it takes a mindset hovering on delusion and a fear of the unknown....enjoy your hypocritical little bubble...and keep those donations coming in, the church is on the slide, they need your cash!
Also, one's name does not negate an argument, unless you could find nothing else appropriate for rebuttal.