At one time I probably would have agreed with a call for a theology of atheism. But now this strikes me as both absurd and unneeded.
Sure, I've got a blog called Church of the Churchless. That sort of sounds like the same thing. Aren't I trying to foster a belief system for people who don't believe in God or the supernatural?
Not really.
This might have been part of my motivation when I started this blog back in 2004. Hard for me to say. I'm a considerably different person now than I was back then, just as I'm a slightly different person today than I was yesterday.
Now, I view knowledge and experience of the natural world — the one we're born in, live in, and die in — as all that's needed to get through life successfully, happily, wisely.
Atheism simply is the absence of a belief in the existence of a god or gods. This word is needed because most people do believe in a god or gods, and their beliefs strongly shape human cultures and societies.
There isn't such a term for people who don't play golf.
They simply are people who don't play golf. For avid golfers, that game is really important to them. However, non-golfers don't feel a need to come up with a coherent explanation for why they don't play golf.
They just don't play golf. Instead, they do other things.
So the notion of a theology of atheism strikes me as being similar: unnecessary. Atheists are just people who don't believe in the existence in god or gods. Instead, they believe in other things. Like the obvious reality of the natural world.
Molly Worthen, though, has a piece in the New York Times called "Wanted: A Theology of Atheism."
As nonbelievers tangle with traditional Christians over same-sex marriage and navigate conflicts between conservative Muslims and liberal democracy, they will need a confident humanist moral philosophy. The secular humanist liberation movement, in its zeal to win over religious America, should not encourage nonbelievers to turn away from their own intellectual heritage at the time when they will want it most.
OK. This makes pretty good sense to me. What bothers me about Worthen's essay is the attitude reflected in this passage:
Atheism, like any ideological position, has political and moral consequences. As nonbelievers become a more self-conscious subculture, as they seek to elect their own to high office and refute the fear that a post-Christian America will slide into moral anarchy, they will need every idea their tradition offers them.
In line with how I started out this post, I don't see atheism as being an "ideological position." Rather, it is the absence of one.
The "idea their tradition offers them" is simply knowledge and experience of the natural world. In other words, reality.
Why is there a need to justify a belief in reality rather than illusion, in truth rather than falsehood?
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Brian:
Sorry for being repetitive but you seem to be clinging to a nice notion that doesn’t bear out.
You wrote:
“Atheism simply is the absence of a belief in the existence of a god or gods. This word is needed because most people do believe in a god or gods, and their beliefs strongly shape human cultures and societies.
There isn’t such a term for people who don’t play golf.
They simply are people who don’t play golf. For avid golfers, that game is really important to them. However, non-golfers don’t feel a need to come up with a coherent explanation for why they don’t play golf.
They just don’t play golf. Instead, they do other things.
Dreams and reality”
Brian, if only that were true. And it is true for some A-Theists.
But if you read Christopher Hutchins or Richard Dawkins you will see that they decry such limp wristed non-belief.
They advocate a virulent Anti-God attitude.
Applied to your metaphor for Golf, they are going around the world claiming that Golf is a dangerous and bad sport, and doing everything possible to end the practice of public funded golf courses. The religion of Atheism believes that other beliefs about God are very wrong and harmful. And the religion of Atheism believes that those who hold such beliefs harbor prejudices and act upon ignorance, lack of civilization and civility.
These missing and noble human qualities can be found in abundance but only within the Church of Atheism.
Atheism today is a range of beliefs. Wikipedia actually provides four definitions that cover that range. From non-belief, as you define above, all the way to Anti-God, which is what is practiced by those who blame, denigrate or otherwise focus on the religious practices and beliefs of others.
In that latter version, the Dawkins and Hitchins version, you have a system of belief ABOUT God…A system that believes believing in God is a dangerous and bad thing, just like a Christian depicting Satan worship.
And that is a religion of Atheism. So when we view the posts here on “Church of the Churchless” do we see commentary about beliefs about God? Or is this site entirely absent such comentary?
You have accurately depicted A-theism, but that is not a skirt to hide Anti-God beliefs and prejudices. Doing is is not intellectually honest.
What would be the honest answer? To acknowledge that Atheism as it is practiced today, and depicted here at Church of the Churchless, reflects the full range from non-belief to indulging in the belief system and prejudices of Anti-God: the Religion of Atheism which accuses and blames all other systems of belief different from its own.
One need only review the posts here at Churchless, to see that range.
Spence, it makes sense to be anti-religion when believing in religion leads to harmful effects. For example, disregarding scientific knowledge about, say, global warming and the effectiveness of vaccines because it is believed that God will take care of everything.
I’m not aware of anybody who is opposed to people believing weird things. It is only when those weird beliefs affect other people negatively that opposition is justified.
Brian, thanks for responding.
It seems to me that prejudices shared about those who believe in God, from those who don’t, shine through even when they don’t realize what they have just said.
You are depicting a whole range of people who love God, and by attributing a disbelief of Global Warming exclusively to them, you are taking the worst of them for the whole group. And that prejudice reflects another about Atheists as wise, scientific and all knowing (at least knowing enough to judge the stupidity of others who don’t believe as they do ;).
Stalin was an atheist. We don’t presume to judge any other atheist by his behavior.
So was Robsepierre, during the French Revolution. A famous atheist responsible for Monsieur Guillotine. Robsepierre locked up Thomas Paine, who was a scathing critic of Christianity (The Age of Reason), because Thomas Paine was also a very strong believer in God, and refused to deny it, even under threat of death.
Hitler like Stalin and Robespierre, dispised the Christian Church, according to the diary of Joseph Goebbels.
Between those three, Hitler, Stalin and Robespierre, the attributed killings (over 30 million people) exceed all the estimated deaths from all holy wars and the inquisition added together.
RE: Your comment about Global warming, it is true that it is not believed by many conservatives and many of those are Christian.
But not all conservatives are religious. I refer you to the Libertarian party, which doesn’t hold to fundamentalist views of Church-run-State.
Furthermore, you imply that Atheists all agree that Global Warming is real and bad. Has it occured to you that some Atheists don’t believe in Global warming either?
Mixing politics, popular science, scientism and spiritual views together may make sense for oneself, though it could be argued that only science and spirituality are truly compatible, one a version of the other. But it most assuredly leads to error when one tries to project such things upon other people.
For a person who doesn’t believe in ESP, you are certainly drawing a conclusion about folks you have never met.
You see, if we are all so limited, why make judgements about millions of people you don’t actually know personally?
Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. Albert Einstein was something between an atheist and an agnostic.
You can’t categorize people as you have tried to do with any hope of credibility.
It’s unnecessary.
But understanding ourselves seems to me a full time job. If it is acknowledged honestly what we really don’t know.
The same kind of honesty you are claiming for Atheism.
One can apply it to how little one knows of one’s own self.
And then begin a journey of real discovery and wonder.
In that dark dirt, thems diamonds in there!
😉
*
Atheists, . . before dreaming°°° of a non-causal theory
( against ALL scientific theorems )
should first try to debunk my mathematical proof
of the fact
that a cause exist
I explained that 2 or 3 times here and its irrefutable, hence there s
no rebuttal
777
–
°°°
What a sad chilling cold frigid and sad loveless icy dream that is !