Breaking News: Atheists Don't Live in Despair!
Fortunately, though, some of these Christians also end up recognizing their error and the need to make serious adjustments to their view of the world around them. Progress is depressingly slow, but it does seem to happen.
Father Stephen Freeman, an Orthodox Priest in Tennessee, expresses his surprise at learning that atheists don't all live in depressing, hopeless despair:
I am gradually learning things that I have not known before - or only suspected. Posting occasionally as I have on the subject of atheism, and receiving occasional reponses from atheists, is an education in itself. There is atheism as I imagine it to be (I suppose what it would look like were I one) and there is atheism as it has historically expressed itself (in such writers as Nietsche or Sartre) and there is what I would dub “neo-atheism” if only because it seems to differ from its predecessors.
It's good that Father Stephen Freeman recognizes that atheism today is different from what he imagined atheism to be, but perhaps atheism "as it has been historically expressed" isn't as different from atheism today as he imagines. If he only focuses on a couple of atheist authors, does he really expect to get a full picture of atheism at that time? Nietzsche's writings represent Nietzsche's beliefs and Sartre's writings represent Sartre's beliefs; neither can be treated as representative of atheism generally or even atheism of their culture and time.
If I read books by a couple of 19th century French and German Christians, could I justifiably imagine that I understand Christianity generally or even just Christianity of that particular time? Of course not — there's a tremendous amount of variety in Christianity and the opinions of a couple of Christians would not suffice to fully express that variety. Atheism has even more variety since it has no dogma or orthodoxy to create firm outer boundaries of belief and action.
The major difference is this - there is a classic despair in early continental atheism and something of a search for a meaning that would replace the overarching themes of Christianity. And there’s the phenomenon as I am seeing it, particularly among younger people today. If I had to describe what I’ve been reading (and I’ve been surfing around a bit to test my theories) it would be an atheism that has jettisoned despair, or, rather, a way of human living in which hope (in a transcendent sense) is not a major issue. Thus it is not a “living large” but learning to “live small.”
I encounter elements of Buddhism (some forms of Buddhism are strictly agnostic or atheist in belief), elements of an existentialism, and primarily a defining of life in terms which do not require what atheism cannot supply.
It is true that transcendent hope has been jettisoned, but it's not true that this is something new — atheists have been doing it for a long time, even if the few atheists Father Stephen Freeman reads didn't. Notice, though, that Freeman insists on adopting an attitude of arrogant superiority: because atheists don't have a category of "transcendent" hope like he does, they must be living "small" in comparison to Christians like himself and atheists who do have such a category.
Who is he to say that an atheists' life is "smaller" than his own merely because they don't transform their life into little more than an application for admittance to an alleged afterlife?
Despair, if given its proper meaning, simply means “to have no hope.” For some this is also synonymous with depression and the like. But for others, it simply means something that is not part of their lifestyle. Hope is shrunk to more immediate concerns, metaphysics having been jettisoned. ...
Apparently, the despair that I project and expect of an atheist is not a given - or more to the point - it is a gift. To see the world without God and perceive its meaninglessness - and to perceive the tragedy of such - is a gracious gift of perceiving the truth.
What started out so positive and progressive moves quickly to arrogance and condescension. Father Stephen Francis discovered that atheists don't live in despair as he though they did, and at first it appeared that this learning experience might result in some growth and development. Now, however, we see that rather than learn that perhaps atheists' lives are positive and rewarding, Father Stephen Francis has concluded that we are worse off for not feeling despair and not thinking that it's a tragedy that life and the world lacks transcendent meaning.
In effect, then, Father Stephen Francis feels sorry for us atheists that we aren't depressed for not being like him. Remember, though, that atheists are the ones who are arrogant, rude, and intolerant for daring to speak publicly about why they don't believe in any gods. It's OK for a religious theists to say that atheists would be better off with the "gift" of despair over not believing in any gods, but it's uncivil for an atheist to say that belief in gods is irrational.
Comments
Interesting that he mentions Buddhist atheists. The whole point to the Buddhist “path” is to avoid unnecessary suffering. Buddhists, apparently, don’t perceive any connection between “not suffering” and a belief or reliance on a god. Apparently, thousands of years before Nietzsche and Sartre were writing, atheists existed. And these atheists were successfully transcending suffering in the form of Buddhism.
Of course Buddhist atheists weren’t the only happy atheists; but they were, and continue to be, a fine example.
I intrepret what Freeman is saying as being sort of “cultish.” Some group–religious, political, corporate, familial, or otherwise–has an agenda. They then go out and recruit those who have not found meaning in their lives yet, and they steal their will–and life–from them. They supplant the person’s own will and goals–which were, as yet, uncultivated–and they provide them with a prefab “will” that is in line with the agenda of their meme (in this case, the meme of Christianity).
The person’s ability to grow and create meaning in their own life has thus been successfully subverted (but there is always hope it has not been completely destroyed…?). They may go on smiling and happy that they have no will of their own any longer (some compare it–not surprisingly–to the Star Trek “Borg” model).
I see no difference between what Freeman is describing, “Trade in your own will for the will of this meme, and be happy,” and some Mooney on the roadside selling flowers with a smile and a blank look.
Once you admit your goal is to subvert the individual’s life’s meaning and will and enslave that person to your chosen cause/agenda, it’s little different than some very unsavory historic political movements we can all likely recall.
While Christianity is benign and not massively harmful at the moment (at least compared to some of its prior incarnations), this is not considered to be an urgent social problem. Suck away as many lives and wills as you can; it’s not illegal. But when a person loses their mind/will/life in a cause of any sort–isn’t there always a high potential for abuse?
Wouldn’t it nice if all this religious energy went into helping people cultivate personal goals and potentials? Is it better to convince them that happiness can only be found in mental enslavement to the service of “Cause X”? Is it a positive movement that hopes individuals will never attempt to uncover what is important to them in their own lives?
I’m not alarmist enough to suggest that such movements should be outlawed, simply due to potential abuses; but there is an aspect of…creepiness(?)…to hear someone asking how a person can be truly happy if their will is not enslaved to some externally imposed cause.
tracieh, Are you saying, Don’t drink the kool-aid?
That depends on two things: (1) who’s offering it, and (2) what flavor?
Seriously, though, Freeman’s confoundedness at the happy unbeliever just leaves me thinking: “How can one be happy if one has not assimilated?”
He dismisses any religion that doesn’t deal with an afterlife, all Buddhists, and any manner of unbeliever as being “hopeless.” What a sad thought–that I can only enjoy my life if I think I get another life after I die. What is wrong with people that they can’t enjoy the real life they know they have in the here and now? Especially hearing someone who is living in nice conditions in a wealthy nation…I just don’t get it. Now, if he was starving and living in horrible conditions, his ideology would make more sense. But what is so horrible with his life that he needs another one to make up for it? And what an ego to think that “I” just have to go on forever–or else I’m just going to sit here an be miserable! I guess I lack the self-importance it takes to think like Freeman. But there’s a weird paradox: The Xian thinks he should go on forever, even though he believes he’s a vile, flawed worm of a creature. I guess once the Borg has changed him into the perfect assimilated being, then he’s more worthy of an eternal ego?
I get confused.
Tracie, Do you mind if I wax biblical for a moment? It sounds like this is what you are saying. Ecclesiastes: 9:4 Indeed, for any among the living there is hope. A live dog is better off than a dead lion. 9:5 For the living know they are to die, but the dead no longer know anything. There is no further recompense for them. 9:7 Go eat your bread with joy and drink your wine with a merry heart. 9:9 Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of the fleeting life that is granted you under the sun.
As ever,the patronising pity these people express for atheists is based on their assumption of how they would feel if they suddenly lost their faith(by an “act of god-almost”).They just cannot comprehend that the world around is amazing,thought-provoking,and throughoughly satisfying as it is,without the need of a creator to give it these qualities.Deluded theists can turn into happy,realistic atheists,but they ,typically,have no idea that their ideas will need to evole to reach our state of contentment.I hope this sounds as condescending as they are to us-I pity them and their guilt-obsessed lives.
I have read history. The human race has never avoided a major catastrophe from war to depression to environmental collapse. I despair of them for good reason. Skygods have nothing to do with any of it.
OMG. He has a blog.
I knew him - he used to be the priest at my parents’ Episcopal church before he abruptly became Orthodox. He was always arrogant as hell - he offended my mother quite seriously by treating her as someone whose opinion quite obviously didn’t matter (she being a woman) and he also antagonized a lot of people - including me - by denigrating our political beliefs.
This is so very like him. How dare atheists not be in despair? Everyone must become Orthodox because otherwise they *have* to be miserable and lost, and if they aren’t, well they should be.
Amazing.
Ron: If I’m reading you right, then I think that is a fair assessment of what I’m saying.
It doesn’t surprise me the Old Testament has passages that support the idea of living happily without regard to an afterlife, as the “afterlife” philosophy was not widely held in ancient Judaism (and at best promoted by only a few and only vaguely defined or understood–not part of the overall orthodox doctrine). The word translated in the Old King James as “soul” simply meant “life” or “breath”–not some everlasting spirit that went on after death. This life was all there was to most of the Hebrews. Interaction with other cultures began to alter that in later years, and the modern Christian philosophy (basically reformed Judaism) leans so heavily on afterlife as a reality that it has come to be many Christians’ sole hope; which is ironic in that it evolved out of a prior religion with little-to-no such belief or philosophy.
Yes, Tracie: You are reading me right!