Dear Non-Theist friends,
I was surprised, and gratified, to receive so much feedback to my first attempt at dialogue. Though I wasn't able to respond to all of your comments, I found many illuminating. While most, as might have been expected, came in the context of the HuffPost talkbacks, quite a few people took the time to email me personally. The emails were, by and large, written in a calmer tone than most of the online comments. Several were particularly thoughtful, which I greatly appreciated, even when I didn't concur with their message.
Regardless of forum or tenor, most responses to the article shared a common starting point, namely, an instruction that I was incorrect in assuming most self-declared atheists to be ambivalent about the existence of a higher, divine power, rather than firmly convinced that no such power exists. While I continue to suspect, based on my own experience and history of interactions, that there are more agnostics (as I understand the term) than 'pure' atheists, it seems, based on these responses, that there are more 'true' atheists than I'd thought. Equally striking was the lesson that there are very many different conceptions of atheism: in the comments section alone, there were at least a half-dozen definitions for the terms atheist and agnostic. It's clear that there is no universal understanding of the concept warranting blanket assumptions about the nature of atheist belief (or lack thereof). I sincerely apologize for making such an assumption and feel somewhat silly about having done so -- after all, there are myriad paths to religious belief, and I've frequently decried those who make blanket assumptions about all religious believers.
A number of commenters felt it was rude or disingenuous of me to invite open dialogue and then immediately launch into a critique of atheism. To be absolutely clear: I want to have a meaningful and open dialogue in which all participants feel respected and valued for our common humanity despite our obvious differences. My own approach to discussion stems from traditional Torah study, in which logical argument (in which a series of competing propositions are advanced -- without hostility -- until a conclusion, or at least mutual understanding, is reached) is intrinsic to a thoughtful Jewish life. For those unfamiliar with the process, the Talmud is, in one respect, a record of debates. There are no three inches in the Talmud's 5400 pages that are free from dissenting opinions. If a line of reasoning is proved untenable, it is discarded, while the one who brought the argument is treated with respect (and, in many cases, expresses appreciation for the opportunity to learn). If no conclusion is agreed upon, unlike certain other traditions, dissents are preserved for record and for the sake of honesty and posterity. Anyone who reads the arguments generations later can benefit not just from the conclusions, but from the reasoning by which they were determined. Two of the most famous interlocutors, known to us as Hillel and Shammai, engaged in hundreds of dialogues, recounted throughout the Talmud, in which the two agreed on almost nothing. Nonetheless, the Talmud emphasizes their mutual esteem and high personal regard for one another. Their children married, they spoke civilly to one another and treated one another with respect as pursuers of the same common truth. In short, each mercilessly attacked the other's arguments, not the other's person. If you've read this far, chances are you can meet this standard of civility, even with someone with whom you fundamentally disagree. I propose that we all strive to follow this model in our various debates.
Finally, I had no idea that so many atheists feel persecuted and harassed for their beliefs. I can state with complete honesty that, prior to these exchanges, I had never heard about this before. I strongly agree with the commenters that any such discrimination is wrong. I love America for many reasons, first among them being our freedom to live according to our convictions. There should be zero tolerance for discrimination against, or intimidation of, people of any belief system -- including atheists. I will be the first to defend anyone who feels that he or she has been denied a job, ostracized from his or her community or shunned by family for such reasons. Mutual respect for one another's fundamental human rights is integral to what I believe. As it happens, The Theist "community" shares these feelings of persecution and creeping invasion of "the other side" in various aspects of their lives. I think that there can really be some productive conversation generated on this topic and I hope to cover it in a future post.
As for us -- namely, you, as reader, and me as writer -- it's my hope that we can follow the example of Hillel and Shammai, loving both the debate and the debater. The Talmud asks, "Who is wise?" Its answer: "One who learns from everybody." I do not believe that any individual has a monopoly on knowledge or wisdom. I sincerely enjoy these exchanges and look forward to learning more together as we go forward.
With respect,
Adam
Follow Rabbi Adam Jacobs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiAdamJacobs
Timothy Beal: In the Beginning(s): Appreciating the Complexity of the Bible
What's So New About the New Atheism?
A Place on the Right for a Few Godless Conservatives
Atheists head for high schools with new clubs for Godless teens
Open Letter to Rabbi Adam Jacobs and the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Communities
As far as definitions of atheism, it is an issue that not even all atheist agree on. Most prefer the broad definition because it is the most practical for discussion. There is always some push back from people who don't want the stigma that comes along with being called an atheist, and prefer to just be called agnostic. It's somewhat non-sensical because "i don't know" is not an answer to "do you believe". I
An agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known.
And you're also doing what Republicans do by making generalizations about an entire group of people - in this case, religious people and our supposedly feeling "threatened" by expressions of atheism as if how some people react reflects how all of us react. Attacking an entire group of people based on generalizations that don't apply to many of them is straight out of the GOP playbook.
Okayyyy. I haven't interviewed every religious person or probed the depths of every religious mind. I only know what I hear and read when the arguments are in full force. So let me try again: It is a common, widespread, popular, beloved, hoary, overused, facile, hackneyed, cliched idea put forth by SOME religious thinkers that atheism is a religion too. (See: I know you are but what am I.) I say, if you have to redefine your ideological enemy and reshape them to suit your argument against them, you've got yourself a weak argument and should begin your examination there.
Pray tell, friend Adam, which line of logical argument leads to the conclusion that your particular personal god exists? I have read many Christian apologists' approaches and every single one fails. As far as I can tell, most of them commit the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy. That's quite irrelevant but something I find amusing and therefore worth pointing out. Anyway, please feel free to give me - and other readers - a quick rundown of your logical argument leading to the conclusion that your particular flavor of god - I assume the Abrahamic God of the Old Testament - exists.
I'll admit, I have to try really, really hard not to facepalm whenever I hear that argument.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/works/RabbiGottliebLivingUpToTheTruth.pdf
Now, about the foreword (again, acknowledging that it's not written by the rabbi himself). I think anyone claiming that joy is an inherent, essential and true quality of a wedding should have no business writing logical texts. The technical term here is "Appeal to Emotion" - Favorable emotions are associated with X, therefore X is true. Nonsense.
Here is a little excerpt that dooms, if not the essay itself, then at least the imbecil who wrote the foreward:
"There exists in this essay a certain quality of truth, namely, evidence and logical support that verifies the truth of the hypothesis. [...] Those individuals have already made up their minds whether or not there is a G-d, [...]."
1 - The first sentence clearly and blatantly begs the question. You can't just assert the truth of a claim, you have to get to it by logical analysis.
2 - The rest of the paragraph can quickly be summarized like so: If you already agree with what this essay says, you'll see it's truth. If you don't agree and you find the evidence insufficiant, then you are clearly not open minded and you won't see the asserted and predeclared truth of the thing.
I'll read the rest, but like I said, I already smell rubbish. And no, that's not because I don't have an open mind. Tt's because I do have an open mind that knows enough logic, science and scripture to see right through fallacious arguments.
Wonder if they'll accept this?
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
Yes, from Wikipedia. That was after visiting two sites on the subject that AVAST warned me away from. Why would anyone write put up a religious site with a Trojan Horse in it? My guess is to ambush believers. What a shame.
An open atheist cannot get elected to political office in this country. Even though I believe (hope) that many of our politicians are either agnostic or atheists, they dare not let a hint of that become known. Of course, that's why EVERY politician ends their speech with God Bless America.
At the end of the day, if our comments to your articles on HP have opened your eyes to this discrimination against non-theists, then that is surely a positive step forward !!
While I realize the Rabbi tries to be cordial, he can't help but supplement his statement by saying "As it happens, The Theist "community" shares these feelings of persecution and creeping invasion of "the other side" in various aspects of their lives." What he's referring to, I'm guessing, is the increasing vocal efforts of atheist/agnostics/anyone who isn't Christian in America to have our first amendment rights protected.
It troubles me that the massive majority of people in this country are theists but whenever some godless non-believer points out that its unconstitutional for the state to explicitly endorse a religion/teach anti-science, theists claim they are being persecuted.
from Truth Dig:
Posted on Mar 13, 2007
Rep. Pete Stark of Fremont, Calif., just became the first Congress member and the highest-ranking elected official to publicly acknowledge he does not believe in God. To give you some sense of how difficult a time nonreligious politicians typically have in the U.S., a recent Gallup poll showed that while 92 percent of Americans would support a Jewish presidential candidate, only 45 percent would vote for an atheist.
For the record, Stark describes himself as “a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this bit of information. I suppose describing yourself as a Unitarian makes it sound as if you attend a church and that is more palatable to the general public.
Like...
Question: What religion are you?
Answer: Oh, I'm not really a regular church goer, but when I do I attend the Unitarian Church.
SRB
If I pulled all of my titles regarding beliefs together I guess you could call me a 'naturalist agnostic atheist humanist'. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but it'll do.
I admire your willingness to reach out to people of other views, to gain a greater understanding of the world.
I am what I would call an agnostic atheist (I don't know if there is a god or not, but choose to believe and live life as if there is not). If I turn out to be wrong, then I'll be the first to admit it. But for now I go with what makes the most logical sense to me, and works best for me.
I am also a former Christian. I spent more than 25 years of my life in one of the more non-traditional Christian sects--Mormonism. I also served my time as a missionary for the church, and am glad for the opportunity that afforded me to step outside my comfort zone, to learn more about the world around me.
I think that the more we expose ourselves to other views, the more we will come to understand, and accept each other as individuals. I believe this is the only way our world will ever achieve REAL and lasting peace. Exposure --> Tolerance --> Understanding --> Acceptance (we don't necessarily need to agree with another's views to accept them as valued members of society).
One question for you: Do Jews today generally accept the "Documentary Hypothesis" (multiple sources: J-E-P-D-R) of the Torah, or do you still believe the whole thing came directly from YHWH through Moses?
I really enjoy reading stories of enlightenment like yours. How did it feel when you finally broke those final chains of religion?
I believe that I have come to a point now, where I have accepted the world for what it is. I try to find my own way, and help whomever I can along the way. I try not to be overbearing about my views, but I will offer suggestions and advice where I feel it will have some impact.
Do you require "faith" to assert that leprechauns and unicorns don't exist?
Your statement is the kind of crap that Pastors tell xtians in sunday school, and this is what they want to tell innocent children in public schools.
Orthodox Jews believe that the first four books of Moses were dictated by God to Moses. There is differing opinions as to whether they were written down at one time or slowly over the 40 years in the desert. The fifth book consists (in a large part) of Moses speaking to the people so most of it is Moses choice of words but God gave them a stamp of approval in telling him to write it down as part of the Torah (for all we know there was more that wasn't written down).
The very end of Deuteronomy is subject to dispute between Rabbis in the Talmud as whether it was written by Moses or Joshua.
There are some more obscure sources that have a more complicated process by which there may have been some later additions but these are not widely accepted and anyway do not reach anything close to the Documentary Hypothesis.
Obviously over time do to scriveners' errors differences cropped up but these are normally taken care of by gathering many Torah Scrolls and using a majority rule to eliminate differences (this had to be done every couple of hundred years or so).
I personally find it astounding that there are people who still believe that Genesis was handed down directly from a single source. A simple reading of the book makes it obvious that different beliefs from different eras had a hand in the narrative. Either that, or their god has an issue with multiple personality disorder.
That said, Jacobs seems to have some character and reads the comments. So I say this in hopes to raise his awareness of what he said and in expectation of him addressing this point.
---------------
I do not feel persecuted and I have never been harassed for my views, and neither have any of my atheist friends.
Another thing: atheists have no "beliefs".
An atheist simply says: "I do not accept any claim of existence of god and supernatural entities because there is no evidence or proof, empirical or logical, of such existence AND no logical proof can ever be found".
There is no more to it. That's atheism. And it involve no "belief".
An agnostic would stop before the "AND" in the above sentence, leaving the door open for acceptance if, one day, evidence or proof is found.
The proof and evidence-empirical or logical, must be verifiable by independent testing, physical or logical, to ensure objectivity*.
This is the same requirement as in science for acceptance of any hypothesis as a valid theory or fact. And this is the ONLY overlap between science and atheism.
* It is understood that nothing that involves human involvement can be absolutely objective.
I'm not troubled by it in anyway, other than if I was applying for a job to a church member that knew me, I'm almost certain I wouldn't be hired if they knew I were an atheist.
Let me supplement all that by saying I live in the DEEP south, in a town with a Baptist "college" that allows no alcohol on campus, so I certainly understand that not all places are like that, but the people in the deep south are terrified of atheists because there are so few that are vocal.
Otherwise, F&F
Thank you.
Always totally amazes me. I used to chat with a guy that thought this every time the supreme court upheld the 1st amendment. Oh my gosh they're persecuting us because we can't make all the public school children pray to Jesus every morning. Poor little defenseless us.
Only when our politicians and their courts are allowed to ignore the BILL OF RIGHTS.
A Democracy, tried by the Greeks. is different from a Republic, tried by our founders.
Maybe that is no longer taught in grade school....I'm old.
For instance, a Christian majority could indeed effect legislation that would give our society a Christian appearance and flavor in every essential way, even while the protection of the other political minorities is maintained.
Based on this comment, which I, too, have found to be true from my exchanges with Atheists in various forums, it appears that Atheists are just as sensitive regarding their beliefs as they chastise Theists for being.
Atheists behavior towards their beliefs just as religionists do in regards to their respective religions, with the same arrogance, jealousy, condescension, and contempt for all not like themselves. For this reason, I find the Atheistic claim that religions are a, if not the, major cause of human conflict throughout history, highly doubtful, if not simple false. It would seem moreover that the source of conflict is one innate to the basic nature of man, regardless of the belief system it is manifested through.
I do know as a Theist, however, that the goal of most religions is to enable man to reach an inner spiritual state (or psychological state, if you prefer) where he can overcome, or at least control, the propensities towards conflict and violence. Religions, as I have found most of them to profess, were meant to elevated their adherents above this contentious nature, and, while it may be argued that they have largely failed in this intent, I maintain that this problem and this failure resides in man, himself, and not religion.