Atheists of the world, unite!
Today's article in the Los Angeles Times reminds us how fearful atheists must be in a climate where religion is burgeoning out of control. With all these weird sectarian fundamentalist types spouting their weirdo creeds against stealing from, insulting, striking and murdering people, it must be a hair-raising time indeed for the harried community of nonbelievers.
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
ReplyDelete--George H.W. Bush
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."--George H.W. Bush
ReplyDeleteYah, it was fuzzymindedness like this that made me vote against him. The first time, anyway. ;-)
And yes, Tlaloc, the only problem with Christianity is Christians, on this we all agree. It's a human thing; you wouldn't understand.
Hey, stop paraphrasing Mencken! That's my job...
ReplyDeleteHm. There's a diversity of thought and opinion among a bunch of people linked by one overarching belief. Sounds kind of like... Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the person who posted that anonymous post would make the same critiques of Jimmy Carter and Abe Lincoln (He certainly thought the U.S. was one nation under God). In the end, these backward, God-fearing presidents employed religious rhetoric just as much, if not more than G.W.
ReplyDeleteIt is a bad time in history to be a devout secularist/atheist. It has only recently become clear that the secularization thesis -- which posited that religious belief was being progressively eliminated in favor of materialism/positivism -- is not being realized and is unlikely to ever be realized.
ReplyDeleteTlaloc, you're going against the grain of the sociological research. Given sociology of religion is one of my reading fields, I know what I'm talking about. Christianity is far less taken for granted than it once was in the U.S., but it is more vigorous in the public square than ever. Lots of great books to read there.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I'm not talking only about Christianity and only the U.S.. The third world is exploding with Christianity, particularly of the Pentecostal/Charismatic sort and Islam is not exactly dying away.
I think Hunter may have something of a point, but I don't think it's the one he was trying to make. Secularism is hardly the same as atheism, and I really wish people would stop trying to conflate the two. Hunter mentioned materialism. Now, I do not believe that materialism is the result of secularism or atheism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my theory is that the recent surge in a return to religion, especially religious fundamentalism, is a backlash against rampant Western materialism. We are too fascinated with stuff, with ownership and avarice. Materialism is an inherently empty, existentially worthless existence. Human beings are as much existential as they are material; there is a spiritual component that should not be neglected.
Now, I disagree that spirituality, ethics, and morals NEED to be adhered to within an established religion (it's fine if they are; it's just not necessary), but the human existence requires some sort of existential/spiritual dimension. When people become fed up with something, they often head as far the other way as they can, a la David Horowitz and Irving Kristol. So, people are returning to the model that was easily available to them: Christianity. And because they are heading so far from where they were, they are holding themselves in opposition to positions on issues that they held earlier, deciding that they are related to their former spiritual derth when they are, in fact, not related at all.
What we are seeing now, with the "rise" of Christianity, is merely the same thing as when "New Age" was popular in the 80s and yoga, Buddhism, and the like became popular in the 90s. People are just trying to find a spiritual component for balance. Things will even out. I just hope things don't get too screwed up before people mellow out.
Some day soon, we shall all bow to worship at the cash counter of... Religimon.
ReplyDeleteI'm not kidding about Religimon. There was a great article in either May or June's Harper's Magazine that talked about the consumerism inherent in the fundamentalist Christian movement. They have so wrapped themselves up in capitalism that they need to "market" Christianity like it was a Saturday morning cartoon show.
ReplyDelete"Maybe if Jesus was hip, then the kiddies will be down with the Lordster! Jesus is effin' metal!"
You might be right, Mr. Elliott. Atheism would be more popular except there isn't very much to merchandise. Chains with nothing on them and a blank book in every hotel room?
ReplyDeleteWe could have Religimon fight Athiechu for domination of the spiritual market.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how that fight would go. Would Athiechu's Disbelief-Zap cause Religimon to disappear in a puff of logic? Or would Religimon's ability to spawn Legions of Religioconsumers overwhelm Atheichu, drowning him in a living sea of sheeple?
I was actually referring to philosophical materialism (of the Oliver Wendell Holmes type) as opposed to consumeristic materialism which is rampant in the Western world. Philosophical materialism holds that there is literally nothing more than matter and that you are nothing more than a walking bag of chemicals and firing neurons. According that view, something like love is an illusion or a manifestation of less romantic impulses that we try to prettify. It doesn't resonate with the human experience of the world and thus it is rejected.
ReplyDeleteOh. Well, then your point wasn't at all what I thought and merely represents what conservatives and liberals always try to do with one another: take an unattractive extreme and say "This is the norm!" for their opponent.
ReplyDeleteBlah blah blah.
My point still stands, though.
No, James, that isn't what I did at all. Philosophical materialism was a very potent force during the first half of the twentieth century and has suffered tremendous setbacks since that time. The fact that you don't necessarily identify with it doesn't mean it isn't real and that I haven't faithfully described it.
ReplyDeleteReligious resurgence is definitely linked to people facing the full implications of philosophical materialism. The alternative is to embrace Romantic Naturalism, which was very popular at one time and still has many adherents today whether or not they would recognize the name.
Peace, dude. I think we've both missed each other's point. It happens.
ReplyDeleteI just don't think you can conflate secularism with atheism or all atheists with materialists. That's all.
Secularists definitely deserve to be distinguished. There are lots of Christian secularists and they have their reasons.
ReplyDeleteAtheism, on the other hand, seems to me inextricably linked to philosophical materialism. I don't know what other option there would be.
I've never understood why. Posit a stupendous coincidence of extraordinarily unlikely natural events that could much more easily have led to utter chaos versus a first cause creator. Why is the first simpler than the second?
ReplyDeleteI take the classical position that it requires an equal leap of faith to posit that a first cause motion setter does not exist.
ReplyDeletebecause the materialist answer requires no unproven hypothesis while the creator one does (namely that said creator exists). Hence by Occam's Razor the first is simpler than the second.
ReplyDeleteThis is simply incorrect. It is always possible to frame any declarative statement in logic so that H sub zero refers to a state A or the reverse not A. The unproven hypothesis can just as easily be "all that exists exists on the material plane" as "there exists a Creator." Occam's Razor is of no help in sorting out which of two a priori assumptions are "simpler."
So there.
ReplyDelete_____________________
HB, I've been mulling your notion that Romanticism, after the fall of postmodernism, is once again in fashion, and agree, if indeed I understand you correctly.
This discussion between a Western philosopher and an Islamic thinker came to mind:
On the eve of the 21st Century, Butterworth argued, we are the stepchildren of Rousseau rather than the stepchildren of Hobbes or Aristotle. In other words, we believe that human beings are by nature good. We don’t want to go back to the Hobbesian vision of government’s origin, according to which humans are driven by concupiscence and unbridled desire and that politics is necessary to preserve order.
The Islamic view of man, rooted in medieval philosophy, holds closer to the latter. It's a brief exchange that I found enlightening re current events and I hope you'll find it worth the look.
(My view is more Thomistic [and Aquinas studied both Aristotle and the Islamic medievals], that we are indeed blank slates who although pulled to the transcendent, must discover and actualize it in our lives through will and reason, but enough of that for now.)
TVD, sounds like it's worth a look. I'm just getting more sustained exposure to Aquinas, so you're comments are helpful. I've read a lot of secondary stuff about his thought, but have some primary ahead.
ReplyDeleteUh oh, TVD. Link didn't work.
ReplyDeleteThe statement that sense observation has priority of simplicity is ad hoc. It is an assumption, not a datum.
ReplyDeleteSorry, HB. Let's try that again.
ReplyDelete