The discourse between evangelical Christians and atheists has been antipodal at best. Whether it is Richard Dawkins calling faith "the great cop-out," or countless professed Christians using "godless" like an offensive epithet, we've reached new lows. In fact, generally the discussion quickly descends into a volley of talking points and apologetics. I abhor those conversations with the same disdain I reserve for being stuck in the crossfire between a toe-the-line Republican and slogan-happy Democrat, rehashing last week's pundit talking points.
I believe we need to revolutionize the way we interact. As an evangelical Christian, I recognize that my community equates atheism with pedophilia, like some dark spiritual vacuum that sucks out any trace of compassion or morality. Even in interfaith circles, where peace and tolerance (and soft kittens) rule the day, the atheists are often eyed with suspicion in the corner -- if they're even invited.
I thank God for atheists. During my college years at New York University, I had the superb opportunity to have powerful conversations with atheists who challenged me to have an honest conversation about faith. I appreciate and value how atheist friends of mine encouraged inquiry. Remarkably, while this may not have been their intent, it only strengthened my faith. While I was able to begin weeding out the empty talking points from the substantive discourse, I hope they also got a glimpse of the love of Christ from an evangelical who wasn't preaching damnation or waiting to find the next available segue into a three-fold pamphlet about how they need Jesus in their life. The point is, Christians need to stop seeing their atheist neighbors, co-workers, and even family members as morally lost, eternally damned, or a possible convert.
What lies at the bottom of this is the assumption, as pushed by many Christian leaders, that religious people have the monopoly on morality and values -- that, in a sense, you can't be good without God. This is troubling on several levels. While at first glance this seems theologically sound to assume the traditional concept of salvation, most haven't grappled with the problematic idea that Hitler could be in heaven and Gandhi could be in hell. That should be troubling for us. Also, the cultural and social ramifications of this leads to an antagonizing relationship. The Bible is littered with examples of non-religious, non-Christian, or non-Jewish people who do good in the eyes of God. It shouldn't be shocking to see atheists teach their children integrity, or volunteer in a soup kitchen.
While I reserve the bulk of my frustration for those misusing my own faith, atheists aren't blameless in this tectonic paradigm. Rather than taking the inclusive road of respectful disagreement, many of the largest voices for atheism find it more enjoyable to belittle faith, mock religion, and disregard their cultural and sociological value. In fact, many consider it their duty to evangelize their beliefs with the same judgmental fervor they fled from their religious past. Knowing that many came to define themselves as atheists against rigid religious upbringing, I don't judge their disdain and frustration. However, like venom in veins, it keeps them from moving forward to having a more productive discourse. So often, when the religious and non-religious traditions grapple with the big question, like ontological definition, theorized cosmology, or the inherent nature of man, these discussion happen separately, without an engagement that is both fruitful and intriguing. I know many of those atheists have something wonderful to bring to that discussion, if they would stop throwing rocks at the window and come sit at the table.
So this is what I propose to my Christian and atheist friends: If we Christians challenge ourselves, our communities and congregations, to treat our atheist brothers and sisters as equitable members of our communities, nation, and in the pursuit of truth, will atheists recognize the value of faith to those who believe, even while they may respectfully disagree? As atheism quickly becomes the second largest philosophical tradition in America, the two communities will only have a greater need of a Memorandum of Understanding to frame how we can collectively work together to challenge the greater issues that face us, which starts by recognizing that it's not each other.
Not sure where to start? Let's feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and protect human dignity. While community service can be utterly rational, I am also pretty sure Jesus would be down for that, too.
This article originally appeared on NonProphet Status.
Follow Frank Fredericks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frankiefreds
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Atheists | Welcome Free Thinkers
Catholic-atheist meetings end with Pope Benedict appeal to youth ...
-A former theist who is not rebelling against a rigid upbringing, but came to atheism through the study of religion and science.
And to suggest that atheists evangelise as the word is used to refer to Christians is a gross inaccuracy. An atheist will never expect anyone to believe anything whatsoever without evidence. Indeed, all the "evangelical" or "militant" or "fundamental" atheists have ever encouraged anyone to do is to be sceptical.
because that revelation is a cross to hard to bear. Do we wait for the herd to awake or ...
Any ideas?
Bring 'em on.
Stand up for what you believe in and let the chips fall where they may. Your friends and relatives will recover from the shock of finding out that you are not a believer.
I don't see any fruitful and intriguing engagement here. I don't see religion as adding anything interesting or worthwhile to our understanding of the universe. I just see lots of bare assertions. I do, however, see lots of religious folks doing everything they can to portray their religion as relevant and necessary. I see the gaps in which their God hides becoming smaller. I see the interpretations of scripture becoming fuzzier and more vague. I see them losing control and starting to panic. Religious apologists seem less interested in explaining anything and more interested in maintaining the illusion that their religion provides something necessary to humanity. They're more interested in its survival.
"While I was able to begin weeding out the empty talking points from the substantive discourse, I hope they also got a glimpse of the love of Christ from an evangelical who wasn't preaching damnation or waiting to find the next available segue into a three-fold pamphlet about how they need Jesus in their life."
Why not the "love of Frank Fredericks" instead? Unlike Christ, you actually exist!
Well, in the matter of faith vs, science..."Follow the fear..."
Superstition and supernaturalism of any kind, religious or otherwise, leaves a wide audit trail like an insecure snail.
I begin with "...[those] atheists who go around aggressively proclaiming their atheism..."
I'm not referring to anyone in particular nor even to a large proportion of self-declared newly minted atheists, only those who aggressively self-identify like a new non-drinker.
My observations were only about that type of newly minted atheist who is ambivalent about his/her leap of reason---regardless of person, gender, age, I.Q., profession, political affiliation or Online news blog membership. Jeez!
No, because you're basically asking whether someone delusional could, by agreeing to engage someone not delusional, be entitled in return to some consideration of his/her delusion. Well, maybe I could bend a bit in that proprosal, but remember, you're delusional, so don't expect much.
- bvf
Well maybe just a bit funny.
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."
- 1 Corinthians 1: 18 - 25
I liked your proposal and have been pursuing a more or less similar agenda on my own for my entire adult life. I was raised Episcopalian and was fairly committed to my church until I finally took the leap of freedom from superstition, backed by evidence and reason, and embraced a naturalistic worldview, one without any supernatural gods or 'churchified dogmas'. As an atheist now for the latter half of my life, I must tell you that my beliefs are not so much about a denial of religion, as they are about a joyful affirmation of ceaseless wonder in the world around me. I can assure you that most atheists that I know are too busy living life to its top to be aggressively anti-theist. Most of us have no axe to grind against anyone's religion----until religion starts to encroach on our liberty and that of our loved ones. Then and only then, do we even get remotely combative but only to defend the ideological "turf" of our own 'magisterium'. [Remember what Stephen Jay Gold called science and religion? "Non-overlapping magisteria"] We'll get along fine as long as you respect my beliefs and I yours. Under these grounds rules, we can even talk or allow our kids to play together.
I always like to remind others that no Christian is exempted from being human by believing in God. Conversely, no non-believer is ever banished from the human family for not believing either.
Until they found out about our atheism.
We Never spoke of religion anywhere near the child.
But kids do talk.
And sadly that was that.
However, I know that evangelical witnessing, an integral part of Christian faith, is actually best shared face to face and isn't faith supposed to be strong enough to enter the 'lion's den'? What kind of honest preacher declines that mission?
Perhaps he felt his child was not mature enough yet to witness safely through play dates. ;~) Can you imagine a 'Big Bang' cosmologist's child being prevented from going over to another kid's house where the father believes in 'String Theory'? LOL. Isn't this just another example of how faith and science are radically different?
Yes, there are some individuals who belittle, mock, and disregard religion - but these are the opinions of individuals - not the source law of every and all people who are atheist. The same cannot be said for Christianity - for in the very Bible itself, the written laws of the creator "God" - nonbelievers are condemned as immoral and amoral people who do no good (with no explanation why) and are summarily sentenced to the most gruesome torturous and never-ending punishment imaginable.
I don't believe there are very many (if any) nonbelievers out there who think you or anyone else should be imprisoned and tortured for eternity because you choose to believe in Christian ideology. It is this very (and absolutely wrong) notion of broad condemnation that can cause many to be put off by the idea of all-powerful, all-knowing ruler gods.
P1: The Tooth Fairy knows when a child loses a baby tooth.
P2: The Tooth Fairy wants to replace a child's lost baby tooth with money.
P3: The Tooth Fairy has unlimited funds.
P4: The Tooth Fairy can be anywhere the it wishes to be.
P5: Some children lose baby teeth but never get them replaced with money.
C1: From P1-P4, if the Tooth Fairy exists, all lost baby teeth should be replaced with money.
C2: From P5 and C1, the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist.
;-P
Can an admitted atheist ever get elected to even the most minor office in this country?
Atheists in America are a persecuted minority.
However, if someone running for public office made a big deal out of their atheism, my response would be the same as what I think when others publicly profess their beliefs:
"Big Deal. So what. The office you seek is secular, not religious. Tell me why you're running, what you intend to do if you get into office, and what accomplishments in your past indicate that you understand how to achieve those goals. And if you put your own religious belief (or non-belief) up front and center, I'll be inclined to vote for someone else."
Unfortunately, that last statement is often an empty plea, since many candidates DO make a big deal of their "faith".....
If the competition successfully hinted that the opposing candidate was an atheist that person would not stand a prayer of getting elected.
Besides, we can't be too choosy. If we want the 1st Amendment defended and atheist Americans acknowledged, we need to have some of our own fellow nonbelievers wielding political power. We need to political capital to remind people atheists are Americans too. If we vote against open atheist candidates, we would only be hurting ourselves and electing candidates who unnecessarily affirm their religious credentials. Better to elect the atheist.
Who else do you suggest we vote for? :-)