Are Atheist Necessarily Spiritual or Religious? Try Neither...
Brandon Kumm, in a rambling essay in which he repeats numerous myths and misconceptions about atheism (despite describing himself as a "fairly analytical person"), inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag by revealing that the "problem" with atheism is that people get upset when their religious beliefs are challenged or questioned:
First of all, the word image that is portrayed by the word atheist waves a red flag in the face of every person of faith. It pours gasoline on the fire of faith by sticking in their face the fact that someone, somewhere not only has not converted to their particular brand of lunacy, but denies the very existence of the basis of that lunacy. So, atheism doesn't make any sense. They should call themselves something else, like the anti-religious or areligious, because it is the tyranny of religion that they are fighting, not spiritualism and certainly not reason. ...
So, for atheism to seem to be against all forms of spiritualism (although they would argue that they are not) smacks of hubris of the worst kind. In fact, it echoes the hubris of the religious person that shouts out that something is so because "God wills it". Either point is equally ridiculous to my mind.
So, according to Brandon Kumm, "atheism doesnt make sense" in part because the label itself signals the existence of people who don't accept theistic religion and, moreover, may even deny it completely. Wait, what? Since when does a label "not make sense" simply because it accurately communicates the fact that not everyone agrees with everyone else?
Apparently, atheists should hide what they think and pander to religious theists by not upsetting them with the terrible, heart-wrenching fact that there are non-religious non-theists in the world. Maybe it's just me, but treating religious theists in such a patronizing, condescending manner seems far more arrogant and insulting than any criticisms offered by atheists towards religious theism.
It might help, of course, if Brandon Kumm had some idea of what atheism is if he discussed real atheism, instead of something he made up out of his own imagination, he might have something useful to offer. As it is, the suggestion that atheists call themselves anti-religious is ridiculous because not all atheists are anti-religious. Some are themselves religious (Raelians, Religious Humanists, Buddhists) and some don't care.
It would also help if Brandon Kumm worked from accurate definitions of religion and spiritualism. Because he doesn't, he thinks that atheists couldn't possibly be critical of spirituality when that's not the case. When spirituality is simply a positive emotional reaction to the universe, then of course atheists can be spiritual; much of the time, though, the label denotes belief in the supernatural which most atheists especially naturalistic, secular atheists in the West reject as much as they reject gods.
Using idiosyncratic definitions to re-categorize all of humanity according to one's own personal ideology is a popular tactic, though. Rather than going through the work of defining what one believes and making a positive case for it in order to convince others to agree, it's easier to just redefine everyone and declare victory but only after attacking everyone else for being too blind and biased to immediately accept their new categorization.
Brandon Kumm does this by putting everything bad in the "religious" category (including many things atheists don't and can't do, but they are somehow still religious) while everything good ends up in the "spiritual" category. He even claims that the "vast majority" of religious Christians, Jews, and Muslims aren't really "religious" at all they are spiritual and they just don't know it yet because they haven't talked to him. This is much the same that we find with Christians whom Kumm would probably criticize when they insist that liberals aren't "real" Christians.
Brandon Kumm is correct that the fight is between "the rational and the irrational" I think it's the only accurate statement in the entire piece but he's wrong to imply that everyone "spiritual" is rational while everyone "religious" is irrational. He avoids any attempt to defend the rationality of what he calls "spiritual" or what "spiritualists" believe. Leaving the term vague makes it easier to avoid hard questions and challenges and remember, the reason why atheism "doesn't make any sense" is because atheists upset people by challenging, questioning, and ultimately rejecting people's comforting beliefs.
Comments
Am I necessarily “spiritual” because I look at the universe and find awe and wonder in abundance, yet find no evidence whatsoever of the supernatural? No. But can this awe and wonder serve as spirituality for me? Yes.
There is sufficient evidence that I am a spiritual atheist; I am moved to the depths of my psyche at the vastness of the world, but this evidence does not necessarily make me spiritual. Necessarily spiritual depends on agreement to the definition of spirituality, and atheists have little consensus on just what that term means.
Are atheists necessarily spiritual? No.
>So, atheism doesn’t make any sense. They should call themselves something else, like the anti-religious or areligious, because it is the tyranny of religion that they are fighting, not spiritualism and certainly not reason.
This line is where the question marks began to hover over my head. When I was younger, I was vegetarian. I dated a guy who felt embarrassed to eat meat in front of me. No matter how many times I told him that my choice was my own, and that I didn’t judge what other people ate–he seemed to never believe me.
Likewise, I was confronted on one occasion by a family member who wanted to know why I didn’t eat meat. The question itself is benign, and I’d answered it often; but it was asked most aggressively on this occasion. The person pressed me for why I didn’t think it was wrong to eat plants, and seemed bent to want to argue about my choice with me (I was not the one who brought the issue up). In the end, we hit something and a light bulb came on: She FINALLY realized that MY decision to not eat meat had nothing whatsoever to do with her. I couldn’t care in the least what she ate or why. Once that got through to her, she, literally, said, “Oh–then this is just something you choose to do for yourself.” I said, “Yes, of course.” And she dropped it instantly–and all was right with the world.
There is a tendency in some people to analyze “other people’s” decisions from a framework of “What does this say about what this person thinks of me and MY choices?” The problem is that I can make life choices without regard for what other people do; and I may or may not be judging anyone else’s actions or motives as I go about the task of living my own life.
Kumm is right about some of the deeper implications of atheism: “…someone, somewhere not only has not converted to their particular brand of lunacy, but denies the very existence of the basis of that lunacy.”
Right he is. However, this part: “the word image that is portrayed by the word atheist waves a red flag in the face of every person of faith. It pours gasoline on the fire of faith by sticking in their face…” is up to the person of faith. Like my meat-eating friend, they can choose to be offended by _my_ life choices and dwell on potential implications for how it reflects on how I _might_ view them. However, this assumes I’m giving a crap what types of personal choices they make.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If you think my choices are stupid or wrong–but you leave me alone and let me live my life–why should I care about your assessment? How does it affect me–even if you wear a t-shirt that says, “I think tracieh is a moron”–if you have no power to benefit me or cause me harm–why should I care?
In Kumm’s example, the “atheist” isn’t even going so far as to make any statement–public or private–about theism. The atheist is merely acknowledging that he isn’t a theist. If a theist gets freaked by that–it’s a cliche by now, I know, but: “Sounds like a personal problem to me.”
As far as his point: “because it is the tyranny of religion that they are fighting…” What a load of crap. An atheist doesn’t need to “fight” anything. An atheist can be completely ambivalent about religious tyranny. An atheist can actually support religious tyranny. In fact, I feel fairly certain many world leaders have supported religious tyranny as a means to subdue their populations–and I’m not sure all those leaders were believers, just because they employed religious tyranny.
Atheists don’t believe any gods exist. Period. Calling myself an atheist says not one iota more about me or what I think or believe or what I’m for or against.
tracieh:
Karl Rove is a good example of a world leader (a behind-the-scenes type, admittedly) who had no compunction whatsoever about exploiting religious tyranny to further his own goals. An on-the-record agnostic, Rove didn’t hesitate in allowing the Religious Right to co-opt the Republican Party. It was a necessary step in accomplishing Rove’s vision of a permanent Republican political hegemony (i.e. a virtual dictatorship). He needed those voters and their votes, and pandered to them without conscience. He nearly succeeded in his plan.
Though many would likely disagree, I think the major fatal flaw in his plan was the Iraq war. It was rushed into action, leaving insufficient time to implement long-term strategies. Not enough troops committed in the first place, no allowance for the possibility that “liberation” wouldn’t be embraced by the Iraqi people with the resulting insurgency conflict, and so forth.
Thus the war has dragged on and become extremely unpopular with the majority of the American populace. And without the support of the people, no war effort can succeed. This led to the Democratic party retaking Congress in 2006, and Rove’s permanent Republican majority went poof! overnight. Bye-bye Rove et. al.
So was Karl Rove an atheist? Depends on your definition of agnostic. I say as long as you don’t hold the belief that a god *does* exist, it doesn’t matter to which degree of uncertainty you hold. If the definition of agnostic includes “I don’t know [if there's any such thing as God]“, then by definition you don’t believe that it does. Put this way, agnostic=atheist. So Rove *was* an authoritarian atheist supporting religious tyranny.
Depends on how you look at it, I guess.
I suspect that most atheists experience the same romantic oceanic feelings as everyone else – maybe even more since they don’t have to see things through all the religious bric a brac.
So, for atheism to seem to be against all forms of spiritualism (although they would argue that they are not) smacks of hubris of the worst kind. In fact, it echoes the hubris of the religious person that shouts out that something is so because “God wills it”. Either point is equally ridiculous to my mind.
Hubris? All those holy people think they know the mind of their god. If that isn’t hubris what is?
All forms of spiritualism? I am not sure just what he is implying by using the word spiritualism. Atheists are not spiritualistic, they do not believe in god, to be spiritualistic you have to believe and it is just not the case.
His points are TOTALLY RIDICULOUS to my mind. Better that he should study up a bit on what he is saying. Hmmmmm. LOL