Atheism & Optimism
Theists' inability to figure out why should lead them to consider that they are operating from false assumptions, but instead it usually leads them to deny reality and insist that atheists conform to the theists' ideological expectations. Even when they don't do this, though, they still make curious mistakes about atheists and atheism.
Jonathan at Truth & Purpose writes:
I have come to understand atheism as a (mostly) healthy and optimistic shift in belief away from a very unhealthy and very ugly view of God put forth by very misguided religious groups. As a Christian, I have seen first hand and experienced how bad evangelical churches and movements can be (which I never thought possible before) ...if I went though the experiences of most folks from bad religious backgrounds, I would probably be an atheist now, and I think that the true God would be pretty happy with that arrangement - it is a good way to sever ties with a belief system with so much crap that runs so deep it must be (in some cases) summarily rejected like a cancer for any healthy growth to take its place.
Jonathan starts out well enough, but he seems to be operating from the basis of a common and pernicious myth about atheists: namely, that people become atheists because of bad experiences with religion. If only they could see religion as it is really supposed to be, some say, atheists would change their ways. If only religious believers would stop being so greedy and violent, others say, they would stop driving believers away.
Thus statements like Jonathan's which sound sympathetic enough not only manage to get so much wrong, but they also end up being a bit condescending as well. Sure, there are some unhealthy and ugly forms of religion out there. Many atheists have very bad experiences with religion. Even in cases where this caused a person to reconsider theism and religion, leading them down a path towards atheism, it is not itself a reason for atheism.
No matter how ugly and violent religion may be, that isn't evidence that no gods exist — it might be strong reason to deny the existence of some conceptions of gods, but not every possible god. Even if every theistic religion were beautiful and sweet, with daisies and rainbows emanating from the doors of every church, mosque, and synagogue, belief in the existence of god would remain unreasonable, irrational, and untenable.
The way I stay closest to my true heart is by being drenched with God’s active and felt presence and spirit and with continuous communication. When I spend time with God, I am renewed - I love greater with true love, I become less selfish, more humble, more passionate, and more patient in the most tiniest details of my life that most people would never even notice. …but how does the atheist become more patient, more loving, more humble, less selfish, more drawn to help humanity rather than use it for their own gain? Where do they go to be recharged and renewed? Where is their inspiration for a life of greater virtue? How do they fight selfishness, short patience, rage? ...
In other words, without the presence of the divine to inspire the greatest (Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha) to understand and be virtuous, how do we who are not like them find out about the details of virtue? Even though we may all reject the manifestations of religion we find in the world around us as being corrupted by man to a lesser or greater degree, is there not some essence of good and truth still uncorrupted there, amidst all the lies and deceit? Is not the foundation, authority, and source of virtue found where the divine is? Where else can it be found? Is it a priori knowledge within each one of us that allows us to recognize virtue when we see it?
It's really not that hard to understand how atheists might find the ability to be more patient, move loving, more humble, less selfish, etc. The only difference between atheists and theists in this regard is that atheists have no need to attribute purely natural experiences to any gods. That theists experience something which makes them feel better and more optimistic should not be denied (except perhaps in a few cases, occasionally). What they attribute those experiences to is another matter entirely.
There are two reasons why. First, given the absence of any good reasons to believe in gods, there is no good reason to attribute these experiences gods. Second, people report similar experiences in the context of entirely different things: watching a sunrise, looking at an infant, viewing remarkable art, listening to certain music, etc. People can find "renewal" in all sorts of sources because such psychological experiences are, quite simply, a natural phenomenon. They are no more "divine" than when people have mystical and religious experiences while under the influence of narcotics or when in specially designed machines.
No, there is no authoritarian source of "virtue" that is independent of humanity — virtue is something that is created and understood through our actions. It can't be any other way because virtue is, by definition, action-based. Virtue must exist in the real world of human relationships and activities; it cannot exist in some abstract or Platonic realm. If moderation is a virtue, it only exists through the choices one makes in steering a moderate course between extremes. It wouldn’t be a virtue if simply contemplated or if one is forced into it. If chastity is a virtue, it only exists through the choices one makes not to engage in sexual relations. Again, it couldn't be a virtue if merely contemplated or if one is forced into it.
This is why there is no a priori knowledge in us that helps us "recognize" virtue when we see it. If justice is a virtue, we learn what it is and why it is important only through experiences with injustice — this is why our ability to dispense justice is able to improve over time. We wouldn't have international courts and war crimes tribunals without the experience of the Holocaust, for example. If mercy is a virtue, we learn what it is and why it is important through our experiences with merciless and pitiless behavior. A human without experiences in human society and human relationships could hardly understand what it is or why it should be shown.
Comments
>…he seems to be operating from the basis of a common and pernicious myth about atheists: namely, that people become atheists because of bad experiences with religion.
From a recent blog post of mine…
>I never was “swayed” by Satan in the form of any atheist writer. No silky smooth sophistry confused me into atheism. No angry incident with my church or a preacher made me hate god. No rebellion against the Christian lifestyle or rules and regulations made Christianity impossible for me. No desire to sin with abandon drove my motives. (In fact, later, when I began to adopt a more Buddhist perspective, I was far more morally restricted than I ever had been as a Christian. Personal sacrifice has never been an impediment for me. I’m simply not a highly materialistic person). The truth is, believe it or don’t, I just put my mind to the task of considering the question and studied relevant data as much as I could, and I determined god is a metaphor.
And in the comments area of someone else’s blog, I posted something else relevant about wrong, atheist-targeted stereotypes:
>Many online apologists come right out of the gate with a ton of preconceived ideas about what an atheist knows/doesn’t know. And a lot of time is wasted explaining things like, “I _have_ read the Bible,” or “I _am_ familiar with the historical data about Jesus.”
>Then how can I not believe? Because I don’t find it convincing. It’s a failure to understand that different people require different levels of support and evidence to draw a particular conclusion. If someone’s standards are lower than my own, they might lack the capacity to understand how I’m not convinced. But I assure them that as someone with slightly higher standards, I’m just as shocked at what they find convincing.
I don’t get insulted by it, but I do see it as super presumptuous and wholly ignorant that anyone would have to boggle their minds to find a “reason” why someone would hold a different opinion than they do with regard to the data presented (in this case on behalf of Christianity’s claims).
How can anyone reach adulthood and not “get” that people have different ways of looking at things? Do these same Christians use this type of prejudice when they address politics?
“What makes someone a Democrat is that they’ve seen the negative way some Republicans act sometimes…” Could it be they actually just honestly disagree with the overall Republican view of how our nation should be driven?
“Why some mothers opt to stay home is that they lack the self-esteem to be working moms…” Couldn’t be that they enjoy raising their kids, can afford it, and have made a conscious choice to do so?
It’s endless. There isn’t something automatically “wrong” with someone _just_ because they disagree with _my views_. It’s not really insulting, because it’s just so ignorant and presumptuous. I guess rather than be offended by it, I’m just embarrassed on behalf of the person who would publicly announce their ignorant prejudices and presumptions.
The fact that so many Xians do this so openly and often, in my mind, makes me wonder how they are possibly offended by the likes of Dawkins? The only “crime” God Delusion commits is that it unapologetically starts from the premise: There is no god.
Thus, the question becomes–what makes people accept a fantasy as reality?
And just look at the flack he’s taken for it. But atheists are supposed to swallow this bitter medicine day in and day out. Frankly, I’m floored that I am in some sort of insane world where people who believe in things that appear to not exist express (what seems to be) sincere consternation about why some of us are unable to see the Emporer’s New Clothes.
Have they even stopped to consider that _maybe_ the reason we can see his naked body as he parades about the streets is not that his clothing is fine and invisible, but that he’s really, really not wearing any clothing?
I fully admit to having a rather bad experience with religion early on in life, but that shaped my my understanding of a religion and in some ways religions in general, not god.
I too was not tricked by an atheist’s smooth words. I like to think I have more logic than that. In fact, logic is what leads me toward atheism. Like a large portion of humanity, I think an afterlife (or at least a way out of the having to confront the idea of dying) would be great.
Wanting (desiring, as per a recent article by Austin) does not make it so. I refuse to let my laziness / desire for things to be easy or the way I want them to dull my mind into not being vigilant in my attempt to understand what existence means.
As for optimism (which I accidentally veered off topic from) I find myself MORE optimistic now. Because I don’t have a set of beliefs written in stone (no Ten Commandments pun intended). I can evaluate ideas based on their worth or logic rather than having to believe what someone else thought up.
Perhaps that is hitting the nail on the head for me, someone else thousands of years ago, came up with untested theories and I’m supposed to swallow them whole without question. Questioning apparently means apostasy in religion in general and that just doesn’t jive with me. Swallowing things whole without being allowed to dissect and ponder and evaluate the dissected portions makes me pessimistic.
I can now optimistically peruse plenty of spiritual and atheistic/agnostic approaches to the big questions in life and feel like I’m actually engaging my mind and participating in my life. There is nothing more refreshing than being able to discern and understand things.
The feeling of an epiphany.
The idea that there is so very much out there that we don’t understand, that we might understand in the future.
Frankly I am amazed that any christain can be optimistic when god himself said that very few will make it to heaven. Most of the people who have ever lived are being tortured endlessly right now, as I type this, and forever. If that does not bother you as a christain, you must be very cold hearted. when I realised that this was not the case I was relieved to say the least, and yes, infinitly more optomistic!
(There are some remarkably vicious trolls on Community forums)
I think that optimism makes sense in the short run, but never really in the long run. We are always soldiers in dubious battles with no good guarantees.
Who are you calling a ” vicious troll” John Hanks?
The fact that we have a life at all is worth celebrating, no matter how dire the circumstances. Optimism depends on the individual, so belief in God (or the lack thereof) is irrelevant to some extent.
The fact that this may be the one chance we get makes everything more precious, not less.
>In other words, without the presence of the divine to inspire the greatest (Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha) to understand and be virtuous, how do we who are not like them find out about the details of virtue?