In retrospect I probably would have left religious belief years sooner, had it not been for the attitudes of many atheist types--specifically the “evangelistic” atheist, the pretentious atheist, and the “God-hater” atheist. Before I go into the characteristics of these types, let me first say that the only belief shared by atheists is a lack of belief in any deity. Since religious people tend to group all atheists together, I feel that it is imperative that I first dispel the notion that there is some gestalt core of atheist thought; atheists are united only in their lack of belief in God or religion.
Of the different atheist types I describe above, I think the most annoying is the “God-hating” atheist. For whatever reason, these tended to be white, male southerners. (I suspect that among atheists in this group there is a higher rate of recidivism or, shall I say, the existence of recidivism at all.) I call these the “God-hating atheists” because in my conversations with these gentlemen (admittedly, most of these conversations took place while I was still religious), invariably their lack of religion was couched in terms like “my father was religious and he was abusive, therefore religion causes fathers to be abusive.” (Incidentally, this statement is a perfect example of denying the antecedent, because, while religion may have indeed been a contributing factor, one has to consider that there is probably another cause.) My father too, was religious, and some of his abuses can be attributed his beliefs, but my father was also insecure and had come from an abusive home; I do believe that he would have been less inclined to follow suit had he not been religious, but since the other underlying causes are far more likely to have caused his behavior, it would be disingenuous for me to lay the blame solely at the feet of his religious beliefs. I digress. These anti-God atheists always bothered me because they were not even convinced of their arguments. Despite them possessing the superior factual position, I was always able to soundly defeat these men in arguments--if only because they tended towards facile and intellectually dishonest positions (e.g. “Jesus never existed,” despite sufficient evidence to the contrary--his claim to deity is another thing), or positions they could not support (e.g., “The Bible is a lie,” which is true, but the onus is upon the speaker to prove). They also rejected most of the other edifices of their childhoods, which cast shadows of doubt upon the sincerity of their atheist positions. In short, they didn’t believe themselves, so it was difficult for me to take their positions seriously. I think atheists of this stripe tend to come across as tepid and incredulous, and thus weaken the position of atheism in the eyes of those with whom they discourse.
The pretentious atheist, like the God-hating atheist, wears his atheism as a badge of honor. I’ve always been regarded as a pretty smart guy, and encounters with these atheists always frustrated me because I hated having my intelligence questioned because of my belief in the God of Christianity. I believe it’s a slight variation on the “poisoning the well” logical fallacy, because there are many highly intelligent people who do espouse belief in some sort of religious system. I do believe that high intelligence often leads people to atheism (simple: smarter people tend to ask questions, and religion’s answers lead to more questions that end at the corner of bromide and question-begging), but it’s laughable to assert that a lack of belief in God causes high intelligence, which seems to pervade the thought processes of these individuals. A.Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani nuclear weapon program, is a devout muslim, so only an utter fool would question this man’s intelligence. Furthermore, although many of the smartest people I have ever met have been atheists, I’ve also known some stupid atheists--I mean really stupid.
The third atheist type, the evangelical, is my least favorite (author’s note: while I realize that the term “evangelical” is a Christian one, I am claiming poetic license). This atheist is the most ardently anti-religion of any of the types mentioned in this blog post, although he chooses to employ similar methodologies as the religionists he decries. I think that the absence of a Christian-style (or any, for that matter) deity becomes self-evident to the intellectually curious, if given enough contemplation. I do not think there is any shared characteristic which causes once-believers to cast off the shackles of religion, so these “There Is No Reason For The Season,” and similar campaigns by atheists seem more designed to raise the hackles of the religious than designed for outreach. Also, the anti-religious campaigns such as those endeavored by Ms. Ahlquist of Connecticut seem more designed to garner local notoriety and Barnum’s “15 minutes” than to combat any over-proliferation of religious expression in the public square. Stridency such as that I’ve described smacks, in my opinion, of a lack of confidence in one’s position; it certainly does nothing to promote the cause of leading people away from whatever myths they might subscribe to. Such cocksureness on the part of the evangelical atheists always irritated me, and thus kept me from introspection regarding my beliefs.
Granted, I am new to atheism (though I’ve self-described as an agnostic for much of the last year and a half), but I think we should stay away from being directly confrontational, at least not on the same scale as the religious. I’d like to present my own view of being non-religious as it was presented to me, not by being as raucous and outspoken as the religious (particularly Christians) whom we love to decry. Individuals must be confronted on a one-on-one basis, and they must be shown why each of their beliefs is non-factual or illogical. I think we gain no new...ahem...”converts” by smashing their beliefs in the public square. Christians in particular gain “brownie” points for adhering to their beliefs in the heart of overwhelming opposition and damning evidence, so being “embarrassed for Christ” is almost a badge of honor amongst Christians. I became an atheist because I found the “truth” of the Bible to be ephemeral, not because a bunch of pretentious jerks in Seattle put up billboards and signs insulting my beliefs. Many of the things I had been taught as “fact” seemed to contradict one another, and the answers to my questions left me feeling cheated. In my childhood I was only regularly exposed to one atheist, and I think he was too young to answer the questions that niggled at me. Finally, in my adulthood I was exposed to friends of my own age demographic who steered me in the introspective direction I would need to discover for myself the truths that demonstrate the Christian religion as farcical as any of the others I’d grown used to lampooning and discrediting. My atheist friends were not the nihilistic monsters that Christianity had told me they should be. I became an atheist because the atheists who inspired me to look away from religion were unlike the stereotypes ascribed to them; pretentious, “God-hating,” evangelical atheists confirmed the stereotypes I’d been taught. If all atheists, regardless of what their other beliefs might be, were to present themselves as contrary to the scary, belligerent Christian stereotype, I think more people would be inclined to listen to what we have to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment