Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on December 03, 2008, 12:32:05 PM
-
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738
This was written in 1991 and I recall reading it back then. (Text of article in following post.)
I find it interesting as it both examines the various forms of atheism as well as what it means to be a good citizen.
Some thoughts that occur while I read it are:
1. Culpability of theists in undermining their religion by both accepting the atheist terms of debate and in shaping their religion to suit the popular culture.
“The natural parents of modern unbelief,” Turner writes, “turn out to have been the guardians of belief.”
“In trying to adapt their religious beliefs to socioeconomic change, to new moral challenges, to novel problems of knowledge, to the tightening standards of science, the defenders of God slowly strangled Him. If anyone is to be arraigned for deicide, it is not Charles Darwin but his adversary Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, not the godless Robert Ingersoll but the godly Beecher family.”
"H. L. Mencken observed that the great achievement of liberal Protestantism was to make God boring."
2. The discussion of the various forms of atheism are of interest, but of especial interest is political or practical atheism.
"Practical or methodological atheism is, quite simply, the assumption that we can get along with the business at hand without addressing the question of God one way or another."
3. The following quote, "As Nietzsche’s god had nothing to do with Christology, so, needless to say, the god that he declared dead had nothing to do with Sinai, election, covenant, or messianic promise," is emblematic of how many (but not all) atheists argue not against my God, but against a false god of their own construct.
4. Pascal's "...God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, not of philosophers and scholars," hints at the philosophical project to box God in with philosophy.
5. "But can a person who does not acknowledge that he is accountable to a truth higher than the self, external to the self, really be trusted? Locke and Rousseau, among many other worthies, thought not."
This gets at the difference between the good citizen and merely the self-interested citizen.
6. "A good citizen does more than abide by the laws. A good citizen is able to give an account, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part. He is able to justify its defense against its enemies, and to convincingly recommend its virtues to citizens of the next generation so that they, in turn, can transmit the regime to citizens yet unborn. This regime of liberal democracy, of republican self-governance, is not self-evidently good and just."
Pretty much the opposite of the oft-claimed, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
7. The Founders assumed that religious faith was part of what made liberty in a consentual govenrment possible.
"The founders’ notion of the social contract was not a truncated and mechanistic contrivance of calculated self-interest."
'It is always being forgotten that for Madison and the other founders religious freedom is an unalienable right that is premised upon unalienable duty. “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”'
Even those less religious such as Jefferson made noise to that effect.
I suspect it is because self-discipline and regard for the nation is required for liberal self-government.
Lacking those two ingredients, self-government degenerates into a mob where all try to steal as much as possible from others and the most ruthless rise to leadership.
-
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738
Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
by Richard John Neuhaus
The question is asked whether atheists can be good citizens. I do not want to keep you in suspense. I would very much like to answer the question in the affirmative. It seems the decent and tolerant thing to do. But before we can answer the question posed, we should first determine what is meant by atheism. And, second, we must inquire more closely into what is required of a good citizen.
Consider our late friend Sidney Hook. Can anyone deny that he was a very good citizen indeed? During the long contest with totalitarianism he was a much better citizen than many believers, including numerous church leaders, who urged that the moral imperative was to split the difference between the evil empire and human fitness for freedom.
On the other hand, Sidney Hook was not really an atheist. He is more accurately described as a philosophical agnostic, one who says that the evidence is not sufficient to compel us either to deny or affirm the reality of God. Sidney was often asked what he would say when he died and God asked him why he did not believe. His standard answer was that he would say, “Lord, you didn’t supply enough evidence.” Some of us are rather confident that Sidney now has all the evidence that he wanted, and we dare to hope that the learning experience is not too painful for him. Unlike many atheists of our time, Sidney Hook believed in reason and evidence that yield what he did not hesitate to call truth. They may have been false gods, but he was not without his gods.
There is atheism and then there is atheism. The Greek a-theos meant one who is “without God.” It had less to do with whether one believed in God than with whether one believed in the gods of the city or the empire. For his perceived disbelief in the gods, Socrates was charged with atheism. The early Christians were charged with atheism for their insistence that there is no god other than the God whom Jesus called Father. In the eyes of the ancients, to be a-theos was to be outside the civilizational circle of the civitas. To be an atheist was to be subversive. The atheist was a security risk, if not a traitor. Christians were thought to be atheists precisely because they professed the God who judges and debunks the false gods of the community. In the classical world, then, the answer to our question was decisively in the negative: No, an atheist could not be a good citizen. But those whom they called atheists then we do not call atheists today.
Those whom we call atheists in the modern period believe that they are denying what earlier “atheists,” such as the Christians, affirmed. That is to say, they deny the reality of what they understand believing Jews and Christians to mean by God. This form of atheism is a post-Enlightenment and largely nineteenth-century phenomenon. It developed a vocabulary—first of course among intellectuals but then becoming culturally pervasive—that was strongly prejudiced against believers. Note the very use of the term “believer” to describe a person who is persuaded of the reality of God. The alternative to being a believer, of course, is to be a knower. Similarly, a curious usage developed with respect to the categories of faith and reason, the subjective and the objective, and, in the realm of morals, a sharp distinction between fact and value. Belief, faith, subjectivity, values—these were the soft and dubious words relevant to affirming God. Knowledge, reason, objectivity, fact—these were the hard and certain words relevant to denying God. This tendentious vocabulary of modern unbelief is still very much with us today.
Necessarily following from such distortive distinctions are common assumptions about the public and the private. One recalls A. N. Whitehead’s axiom that religion is what a man does with his solitude. Even one so religiously musical as William James could write, “Religion . . . shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude.” (The Varieties of Religious Experience, Lecture 2) In this construal of matters, we witness a radical departure from the public nature of religion, whether that religion has to do with the ancient gods of the city or with the biblical Lord who rules over the nations. The gods of the city and the God of the Bible are emphatically public. The confinement of the question of God or the gods to the private sphere constitutes what might be described as political atheism. Many today who are believers in private have been persuaded, or intimidated, into accepting political atheism.
Political atheism is a subspecies of practical or methodological atheism. Practical or methodological atheism is, quite simply, the assumption that we can get along with the business at hand without addressing the question of God one way or another. Here the classic anecdote is the response of the Marquis de Laplace to Napoleon Bonaparte. You will recall that when Napoleon observed that Laplace had written a huge book on the system of the universe without mentioning the Author of the universe, Laplace replied, “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.” When God has become a hypothesis we have traveled a very long way from both the gods of the ancient city and the God of the Bible. Yet that distance was necessary to the emergence of what the modern world has called atheism.
In his remarkable work, At the Origins of Modern Atheism, Michael Buckley persuasively argues that the god denied by many moderns is a strange god created by the attempts of misguided religionists to demonstrate that god could be proven or known on philosophical grounds alone.
The extraordinary note about this emergence of the denial of the Christian god which Nietzsche celebrated is that Christianity as such, more specifically the person and teaching of Jesus or the experience and history of the Christian Church, did not enter the discussion. The absence of any consideration of Christology is so pervasive throughout serious discussion that it becomes taken for granted, yet it is so stunningly curious that it raises a fundamental issue of the modes of thought: How did the issue of Christianity vs. atheism become purely philosophical? To paraphrase Tertullian: How was it that the only arms to defend the temple were to be found in the Stoa?
As Nietzsche’s god had nothing to do with Christology, so, needless to say, the god that he declared dead had nothing to do with Sinai, election, covenant, or messianic promise.
In his notebook, after his death, was found Pascal’s famous assertion of trust in “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, not of philosophers and scholars.” Modern atheism is the product not so much of anti-religion as of religion’s replacement of the God of Abraham with the god of the philosophers, and of the philosophers’ consequent rejection of that ersatz god. Descartes determined that he would accept as true nothing that could be reasonably doubted, and Christians set about to prove that the existence of God could not be reasonably doubted. Thus did the defenders of religion set faith against the doubt that is integral to the life of faith.
The very phrase, “the existence of God,” gave away the game, as though God were one existent among other existents, one entity among other entities, one actor among other actors, whose actions must conform to standards that we have determined in advance are appropriate to being God. The transcendent, the ineffable, the totally other, the God who acts in history was tamed and domesticated in order to meet the philosophers’ job description for the post of God. Not surprisingly, the philosophers determined that the candidates recommended by the friends of religion did not qualify for the post.
The American part of this story is well told by historian James Turner (Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America). “The natural parents of modern unbelief,” Turner writes, “turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change, that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man—intellectually, morally, emotionally—the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” Turner’s judgment is relentless: “In trying to adapt their religious beliefs to socioeconomic change, to new moral challenges, to novel problems of knowledge, to the tightening standards of science, the defenders of God slowly strangled Him. If anyone is to be arraigned for deicide, it is not Charles Darwin but his adversary Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, not the godless Robert Ingersoll but the godly Beecher family.”
H. L. Mencken observed that the great achievement of liberal Protestantism was to make God boring. That is unfair, of course, as Mencken was almost always unfair, but it is not untouched by truth. The god that was trimmed, accommodated, and retooled in order to be deemed respectable by the “modern mind” was increasingly uninteresting, because unnecessary. Dietrich Bonhoeffer described that god as a “god of the gaps,” invoked to fill in those pieces of reality that human knowledge and control had not yet mastered. H. Richard Niebuhr’s well known and withering depiction of the gospel of liberal Christianity is very much to the point: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” Absent our sin and divine wrath, judgment, and redemption, it is not surprising that people came to dismiss the idea of God not because it is implausible but because it is superfluous, and, yes, boring.
It would no doubt be satisfying for Christian believers—and for Jews who identify themselves not by the accidents of Jewishness but by the truth of Judaism—to conclude that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus has not been touched by the critiques of atheism. However, while it is true that the god denied by many atheists is not the God of the Bible affirmed by Christians and Jews, there are forms of atheism that do intend to preclude such affirmation, and certainly to preclude such affirmation in public. There is, for example, the more determined materialist who asserts that there simply is nothing and can be nothing outside a closed system of matter. This was the position of the late and unlamented “dialectical materialism” of Communism. It is the position of some scientists today, especially those in the biological sciences who are wedded to evolution as a belief system. (Physicists, as it turns out, are increasingly open to the metaphysical.)
Perhaps more commonly, one encounters varieties of logical positivism that hold that since assertions about God are not empirically verifiable—or, for that matter, falsifiable—they are simply meaningless. In a similar vein, analytical philosophers would instruct us that “God talk” is, quite precisely, non-sense. This is not atheism in the sense to which we have become accustomed, since it claims that denying God is as much nonsense as affirming God. It is atheism, however, in the original sense of a-theos, of being without God. Then there is the much more radical position that denies not only the possibility of truth claims about God but the possibility of claims to truth at all—at least as “truth” has usually been understood in our history. Perhaps today’s most prominent proponent of this argument in America is Richard Rorty. This is not the atheism that pits reason against our knowledge of God; this is the atheism of unreason.
Rorty is sometimes portrayed, and portrays himself, as something of an eccentric gadfly. In fact, along with Derrida, Foucault, and other Heideggerian epigones of Nietzsche, Rorty is the guru of an academic establishment of increasing influence in our intellectual culture. Here we encounter the apostles of a relativism that denies it is relativism because it denies that there is any alternative to relativism, and therefore the term relativism is “meaningless.” They are radically anti-foundationalist. That is to say, they contend that there are no conclusive arguments underlying our assertions, except the conclusive argument that there are no conclusive arguments. They reject any “correspondence theory” of truth. There is no coherent connection between what we think and say and the reality “out there.” Truth is what the relevant community of discourse agrees to say is true.
The goal, in this way of thinking, is self-actualization, indeed self-creation. The successful life is the life lived as a novum, an autobiography that has escaped the “used vocabularies” of the past. This argument has its academic strongholds in literary criticism and sectors of philosophy, but it undergirds assumptions that are increasingly widespread in our intellectual culture. If personal and group self-actualization is the end, arguments claiming to deal with truth are but disguised stratagems for the exercise of will and the quest for power. Whether the issue is gender, sexual orientation, or race, we are told that the purpose is to change the ideational “power structure” presently controlled by oppressors who disingenuously try to protect the status quo by appeals to objective truth and intersubjective reason.
The only truth that matters is the truth that is instrumental to self-actualization. Thus truth is in service to “identity.” If, for instance, one has the temerity to object that there is no evidence that Africans discovered the Americas before Columbus, he is promptly informed that he is the tool of hegemonic Eurocentrism. In such a view, the “social construction of reality” (to use the language of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann) takes on ominous new dimensions as it is asserted that all of reality, without remainder, is constructed to serve the will to power and self-actualization. Brevity requires that I describe this approach with broad strokes, but, alas, the description is no caricature.
But are people who embrace this view atheists? They brush aside the question as “not serious,” for the theism upon which atheism depends is, in this view, not serious. As with relativism and irrationality, so also with atheism—the words only make sense in relation to the opposites from which they are derived. Of course privately, or for purposes of a particular community, any words might be deemed useful in creating the self. One might even find it meaningful to speak about “Nature and Nature’s God.” People can be permitted to talk that way, so long as they understand that such talk has no public purchase. Rorty’s “liberal ironist” can employ any vocabulary, no matter how fantastical, so long as he does not insist that it is true in a way that makes a claim upon others, and so long as he does not act on that vocabulary in a manner that limits the freedom of others to construct their own realities.
There is indeed irony in the fact that some who think of themselves as theists eagerly embrace deconstructionism’s operative atheism. Today’s cultural scene is awash in what are called “new spiritualities.” A recent anthology of “America’s new spiritual voices” includes contributions promoting witchcraft, ecological mysticism, devotion to sundry gods and goddesses, and something that presents itself as Zen physio-psychoanalysis. All are deemed to be usable vocabularies for the creation of the self. The book is recommended by a Roman Catholic theologian who writes that it “turns us away from the ‘truths’ outside ourselves that lead to debate and division, and turns us toward the Inner Truth that is beyond debate.” But theism—whether in relation to the gods of the civitas theism—whether in relation to the gods of the civitas or the God of Abraham—is devotion to that which is external to ourselves. In that light, it is evident that many of the burgeoning “spiritualities” in contemporary culture are richly religionized forms of atheism.
There is additional irony. Beyond pop-spiritualities and Rortian nihilism, a serious argument is being made today against a version of rationality upon which Enlightenment atheism was premised. Here one thinks preeminently of Alasdair MacIntyre, and especially of his most recent work, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry. MacIntyre effectively polemicizes against a construal of rationality that understands itself to be universal, disinterested, autonomous, and transcending tradition. Our situation, he contends, is one of traditions of rationality in conflict. MacIntyre’s favored tradition is Thomism’s synthesis of Aristotle and Augustine. If I read him correctly, MacIntyre is prepared to join forces with the Rortians in debunking the hegemonic pretensions of the autonomous and foundational reason that has so long dominated our elite intellectual culture. After the great debunking, all the cognitive cards will have to be put on the table and we can then have at it. Presumably, the tradition that can provide the best account of reality will win out.
If that is MacIntyre’s proposal, it strikes me as a very dangerous game. True, in exposing the fallacious value-neutrality of autonomous and traditionless reason, the academy is opened to the arguments of eminently reasonable theism. But, in the resulting free-for-all, it is opened to much else as well. It is made vulnerable to the Nietzschean will to power that sets the rules, and those rules are designed to preclude the return of the gods or God in a manner that claims public allegiance. For one tradition of reason (e.g., Thomism) to form a coalition, even a temporary coalition, with unreason in order to undo another tradition of reason (e.g., the autonomous “way of the mind”) is a perilous tactic.
And yet something like this may be the future of our intellectual culture. In our universities, Christians, Jews, and, increasingly, Muslims will be free to contend for their truths. Just as lesbians, Marxists, Nietzscheans, and devotees of The Great Earth Goddess are free to contend for theirs. It is a matter of equal opportunity propaganda. But—and again there is delicious irony—the old methodological atheism and value-neutrality, against which the revolution was launched, may nonetheless prevail.
In other words, every party will be permitted to contend for their truths so long as they acknowledge that they are their truths, and not the truth. Each will be permitted to propagandize, each will have to propagandize if it is to hold its own, because it is acknowledged that there is no common ground for the alternative to propaganda, which is reasonable persuasion. Of course history, including the history of idhat such talk has no public purchase. Rorty’s “liberal ironist” can employ any vocabulary, no matter how fantastical, so long as he does not insist that it is true in a way that makes a claim upon others, and so long as he does not act on that vocabulary in a manner that limits the freedom of others to construct their own realities.
-
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738
Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
by Richard John Neuhaus
There is additional irony. Beyond pop-spiritualities and Rortian nihilism, a serious argument is being made today against a version of rationality upon which Enlightenment atheism was premised. Here one thinks preeminently of Alasdair MacIntyre, and especially of his most recent work, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry. MacIntyre effectively polemicizes against a construal of rationality that understands itself to be universal, disinterested, autonomous, and transcending tradition. Our situation, he contends, is one of traditions of rationality in conflict. MacIntyre’s favored tradition is Thomism’s synthesis of Aristotle and Augustine. If I read him correctly, MacIntyre is prepared to join forces with the Rortians in debunking the hegemonic pretensions of the autonomous and foundational reason that has so long dominated our elite intellectual culture. After the great debunking, all the cognitive cards will have to be put on the table and we can then have at it. Presumably, the tradition that can provide the best account of reality will win out.
If that is MacIntyre’s proposal, it strikes me as a very dangerous game. True, in exposing the fallacious value-neutrality of autonomous and traditionless reason, the academy is opened to the arguments of eminently reasonable theism. But, in the resulting free-for-all, it is opened to much else as well. It is made vulnerable to the Nietzschean will to power that sets the rules, and those rules are designed to preclude the return of the gods or God in a manner that claims public allegiance. For one tradition of reason (e.g., Thomism) to form a coalition, even a temporary coalition, with unreason in order to undo another tradition of reason (e.g., the autonomous “way of the mind”) is a perilous tactic.
And yet something like this may be the future of our intellectual culture. In our universities, Christians, Jews, and, increasingly, Muslims will be free to contend for their truths. Just as lesbians, Marxists, Nietzscheans, and devotees of The Great Earth Goddess are free to contend for theirs. It is a matter of equal opportunity propaganda. But—and again there is delicious irony—the old methodological atheism and value-neutrality, against which the revolution was launched, may nonetheless prevail.
In other words, every party will be permitted to contend for their truths so long as they acknowledge that they are their truths, and not the truth. Each will be permitted to propagandize, each will have to propagandize if it is to hold its own, because it is acknowledged that there is no common ground for the alternative to propaganda, which is reasonable persuasion. Of course history, including the history of ideas, is full of surprises. But there is, I believe. reason to fear that theism, when it plays by the rules of the atheism of unreason, will be corrupted and eviscerated. The method becomes the message. Contemporary Christian theology already provides all too many instances of the peddling of truths that are in service to truths other than the truth of God.
-
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738
Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
by Richard John Neuhaus
II
We have touched briefly, then, on the many faces of atheism—of living and thinking a-theos, without God or the gods. There is the atheism of the early Christians, who posited God against the gods. There is the atheism of Enlightenment rationalists who, committed to undoubtable certainty, rejected the god whom religionists designed to fit that criterion. There is the practical atheism of Laplace, who had no need of “that hypothesis” in order to get on with what he had to do. There is the weary atheism of those who grew bored with liberalism’s god created in the image and likeness of good liberals. There is the more thorough atheism of Nietzschean relativism that dare not speak its name, that cannot speak its name, lest in doing so it implicitly acknowledge that there is an alternative to relativism. And, finally, there is the atheism of putative theists who peddle religious truths that are true for you, if you find it useful to believe them true.
Can these atheists be good citizens? It depends, I suppose, on what is meant by good citizenship. We may safely assume that the great majority of these people abide by the laws, pay their taxes, and may even be congenial and helpful neighbors. But can a person who does not acknowledge that he is accountable to a truth higher than the self, external to the self, really be trusted? Locke and Rousseau, among many other worthies, thought not. However confused their theology, they were sure that the social contract was based upon nature, upon the way the world really is. Rousseau’s “civil religion” was apparently itself a social construct, but Locke was convinced that the fear of a higher judgment, even an eternal judgment, was essential to citizenship.
It follows that an atheist could not be trusted to be a good citizen, and therefore could not be a citizen at all. Locke is rightly celebrated as a champion of religious toleration, but not of irreligion. “Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God,” he writes in A Letter Concerning Toleration. “Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.” The taking away of God dissolves all. Every text becomes pretext, every interpretation misinterpretation, and every oath a deceit.
James Madison in his famed Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785 wrote to similar effect. It is always being forgotten that for Madison and the other founders religious freedom is an unalienable right that is premised upon unalienable duty. “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.” Then follows a passage that could hardly be more pertinent to the question that prompts our present reflection: “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.”
State constitutions could and did exclude atheists from public office. The federal Constitution, in Article VI, would simply impose no religious test. In reaction to the extreme secularist bias of much historical scholarship, some writers in recent years have attempted to portray the founders as Bible-believing, orthodox, even born-again evangelical Christians. That is much too much. It is well worth recalling, however, how much they had in common with respect to religious and philosophical beliefs. While a few were sympathetic to milder versions of Deism and some were rigorous Calvinists in the Puritan tradition, almost all assumed a clearly Christian, and clearly Protestant, construal of reality. In the language of contemporary discourse, the founders were “moral realists.” This is amply demonstrated from many sources, not least the Declaration and the Constitution, and especially the preamble of the latter. The “good” was for the founders a reality not of their own fabrication, nor was it merely the “conventionalism” of received moral tradition.
The founders’ notion of the social contract was not a truncated and mechanistic contrivance of calculated self-interest. Their understanding was more in the nature of a compact, premised upon a sense of covenantal purpose guiding this novus ordo seclorum. That understanding of a covenant encompassing the contract was, in a time of supreme testing, brought to full and magisterial articulation by Abraham Lincoln. The Constitution represented not a deal struck but a nation “so conceived and so dedicated.”
In such a nation, an atheist can be a citizen, but he cannot be a good citizen. A good citizen does more than abide by the laws. A good citizen is able to give an account, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part. He is able to justify its defense against its enemies, and to convincingly recommend its virtues to citizens of the next generation so that they, in turn, can transmit the regime to citizens yet unborn. This regime of liberal democracy, of republican self-governance, is not self-evidently good and just. An account must be given. Reasons must be given. They must be reasons that draw authority from that which is higher than the self, from that which is external to the self, from that to which the self is ultimately obliged.
An older form of atheism pitted reason against the knowledge of God. The newer atheism is the atheism of unreason. It is much the more dangerous because the more insidious. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Americans—and, I believe, the majority of our intellectual elites, if put to the test—are not atheists of any of the varieties we have discussed. They believe that there are good reasons for this ordering of the civitas, reasons that have public purchase, reasons that go beyond contingent convenience, reasons that entail what is just, the laws of nature, and maybe even the will of God.
The final irony, of course, is that those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus turn out to be the best citizens. Those who were once called atheists are now the most reliable defenders not of the gods but of the good reasons for this regime of ordered liberty. Such people are the best citizens not despite but because their loyalty to the civitas is qualified by a higher loyalty. Among the best of the good reasons they give in justifying this regime is that it is a regime that makes a sharply limited claim upon the loyalty of its citizens. The ultimate allegiance of the faithful is not to the regime or to its constituting texts, but to the City of God and the sacred texts that guide our path toward that end for which we were created. They are dual citizens, so to speak, in a regime that, as Madison and others well understood, was designed for such duality. When the regime forgets itself and reestablishes the gods of the civitas, even if it be in the name of liberal democracy, the followers of the God of Abraham have no choice but to invite the opprobrium of once again being “atheists.”
I am well aware that there are those who will agree with the gravamen of this argument but for quite different reasons. They do not themselves believe, but they recognize the importance of religion as a “useful lie” essential to securing this kind of public order. It is true, and it is sad. It is sad because they do not believe, and it is sadder because they are prepared to use, and thereby abuse, the name of the God whom they do not honor.
But of course they are right about religion and this public order. It is an order that was not conceived and dedicated by atheists, and cannot today be conceived and dedicated anew by atheists. In times of testing—and every time is a time of testing for this American experiment in ordered liberty—a morally convincing account must be given. You may well ask. Convincing to whom? One obvious answer in a democracy, although not the only answer, is this: convincing to a majority of their fellow citizens. Giving such an account is required of good citizens. And that is why, I reluctantly conclude, atheists cannot be good citizens.
-
In such a nation, an atheist can be a citizen, but he cannot be a good citizen.
Can these atheists be good citizens? It depends, I suppose, on what is meant by good citizenship. We may safely assume that the great majority of these people abide by the laws, pay their taxes, and may even be congenial and helpful neighbors. But can a person who does not acknowledge that he is accountable to a truth higher than the self, external to the self, really be trusted? Locke and Rousseau, among many other worthies, thought not. However confused their theology, they were sure that the social contract was based upon nature, upon the way the world really is. Rousseau’s “civil religion” was apparently itself a social construct, but Locke was convinced that the fear of a higher judgment, even an eternal judgment, was essential to citizenship.
Unmitigated BS. Also completely misinterpreting both Locke and Rousseau, conveniently so. Just LOVE when people drop a name and completely misuse what they wrote.
You don't need to subscribe to a set of rules and rituals to have a strong sense of morality or a conscience.
In fact, a modest atheist who does good for the sake of doing good, not for any eternal reward idea, is a far better citizen than someone like a politician who wears religiousity like a shiny hat, but uses it only as a facade to cover for and rationalize their greed and immorality.
That whole thing is a steaming pile. If you want to be a good citizen, you do good things for their own sake. You respect that anyone can believe or not believe as they see fit, as long as their belief's rituals do not involve harming others or infringing on the rights of the general population. (such as, banning music, beating people for not having heads covered, etc)
You do not declare that someone is a lesser citizen because they don't believe as you do.
How many of those animals that trampled over that guy in Wal-Mart also go to church or temples or mosques, I wonder? Does that make them better citizens than an atheist who might run up and help the person instead because it's the right thing to do? Ask yourself that.
One of the firefighters who went up to the top of the WTC on 9/11 after the first fell, who knew they might not come back down, was an atheist. They did not come back. Were they a lesser citizen?
There are far more important qualities to being a good citizen than what you believe or don't.
-
What a mind-numbingly stupid crock of crap.
-
For those of a view contrary to the article author, there is a new atheist political group blog named "Secular Right."
http://secularright.org/wordpress/
-
I find myself in agreement with Manedwolf. And Irwin. Clearly this is TEOTWAKI and I don't have have a stock of ammo and a gun.
-
I'm gonna read it a second time.
Gotta park the emotional response and read it for the meat.
My first reaction is that I disagree in large measure.
I'll take another whack at it and see what I think then.
-
Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
Everywhere but Heaven. ;)
-
You don't need to subscribe to a set of rules and rituals to have a strong sense of morality or a conscience.
I won't argue the larger issue, but I will point out that morality is a set of rules, so...
-
I'm gonna read it a second time.
Gotta park the emotional response and read it for the meat.
My first reaction is that I disagree in large measure.
I'll take another whack at it and see what I think then.
Good idea.
When I read it back in 1991, I would not qualify as a good citizen according to Neuhaus. In 2008, I would.
I suspect much of one's conclusion (agree or disagree) depends on if you agree with Neuhaus' view of what constitutes a good citizen.
If one does not agree, then what characteristics define a good citizen?
-
Whew! Theists really ought to stick to theistic topics instead of venturing into matters they can't so much as begin to conceive.
All the pseudo-historical considerations and quasi-philosophical references and wannabe intellectual notions in the purported "article" are bunkum. We atheists get along just fine without that sort of twaddle—and we do so, thank you kindly, without feeling obliged to pontificate on the topic of theism.
Yall should tend the cattle on yall's own ranch.
-
Morality and good works are not exclusive to people of faith. While many people of faith are moral and do good works, those aren't requirements.
-
couldn't get past the begining of the article. to smug.
religion and morality are not exsclusive to one another.
case in point. i am atheist yet i have morals (very strong ones). and i can be a good citizen. one does not have to believe in god(s) to have beliefs.
-
And here I was thinking that the real question was 'Can atheists be good?'.
-
And here I was thinking that the real question was 'Can atheists be good?'.
depends on your definition of good.
do you believe in many qualities that make someone good? or are you depending on one quality (the belief in god) in order for someone to be good?
my definition of good holds many varibles. so in my opinion, someone who doesn't beleve in god can be good.
-
My personal opinion is that yes, atheists can be good citizens.
It is what I thought in 1991, too.
I had hoped for more interesting responses than, "A bunch of bull," "He's stupid," or, "He has no business writing about atheists."
No commentary on what it means to be a good citizen, evolution of materialist thought over time, good vs self-interested citizenry, theist culpability in the marginalization of theism in some academic/philosophical areas, theists who are practical atheists, or any of the other tidbits.
Oh, well, wrong venue.
-
Whew! Theists really ought to stick to theistic topics instead of venturing into matters they can't so much as begin to conceive.
We atheists get along just fine without that sort of twaddle—and we do so, thank you kindly, without feeling obliged to pontificate on the topic of theism.
And now, some unmitigated B.S. from the atheist side. Wow.
-
Total crap.
For an alternate view, read the only worthwhile thing Marx ever wrote "On The Jewish Question."
That essay is still mostly BS, but it makes more sense than this garbage.
Atheists have a natural edge over others in the arena of being good citizens.
The simple fact that one is an atheist means that they have at least rudimentary critical thinking skills, which is the most important tool a citizen can have.
Not to say theists dont have critical thinking skills. Many/most do.
But there are millions of people in this country that lack critical thinking skills. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a single atheist among them.
-
But there are millions of people in this country that lack critical thinking skills. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a single atheist among them.
You are a master of unintentional humor.
-
Of course Athiests can be good citizens.
It's like asking
"Can Jews be good citizens?"
"Can Blacks be good citizens?"
Just because they CAN doesn't mean they always ARE though. You can be exposed to religion, or not.
You can take your moral cues from religion, or not.
One thing I will say, though.
If you think "being a good citizen" means "following orders from your government without question" then OK, I'll agree that religious folks can probably be better citizens, as they have more practice doing things without questioning them.
Personally, I think that makes a rotten citizen, as well as a rotten person in general. If that's the definition used, I think most of us here would be "bad citizens" and I'd revel in being grouped in with ya'all.
-
One thing I will say, though.
If you think "being a good citizen" means "following orders from your government without question" then OK, I'll agree that religious folks can probably be better citizens, as they have more practice doing things without questioning them.
That's about as ignorant as the original article. Congratulations!
-
But there are millions of people in this country that lack critical thinking skills. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a single atheist among them.
Besides the unintentional humor pointed out by jfruser, based on personal experience, I know it's not hard to find atheists without critical thinking skills.
There are lots of stupid theists and lots of stupid atheists. There are also lots of smart people in both camps. I don't believe there's any correlation between intelligence and religious belief or lack thereof.
-
Which came first, morality or religion?
Which came first, citizenship or religion?
Hint: It isn't religion
Without pre-existing morality, religion wouldn't have been able to start.
I don't need a book filled with contradictory statements, or another person, to tell me what is right and what is wrong. I also don't require anyone, or anything, to tell me what it takes to be a good citizen.
All it takes is common sense. It's too bad sense isn't as common as it used to be, but that's the way it is.
-
That's about as ignorant as the original article. Congratulations!
Thanks!
If you think it's admirable for citizens to never question their own beliefs or their government, then I'll take your call of being ignorant with a bit of pride.
I guess I didn't make my point clear. People that are used to accepting ANY dogma without question make bad citizens, be it religious or government dogma.
Just like I'm sure there are plenty of Atheists that are good citizens, I'm sure there's plenty of religious folks that have no problem questioning dogma. All I'm saying is that if you accept one set of dogma without question, whose to say you won't accept another set of dogma without question?
The problem with atheists is the reverse of that coin, though. If you don't believe in anything, who'se to say you won't fall for the first bit of good-sounding crap?
-
The problem with atheists is the reverse of that coin, though. If you don't believe in anything, who'se to say you won't fall for the first bit of good-sounding crap?
I certainly can't speak for all atheists, but can assure you this particular atheist believes in things, has values, lives up to them, et cetera.
It's awfully condescending of theists to assert atheists "don't believe in anything" simply because we believe in things other than theistic nonsense.
-
I certainly can't speak for all atheists, but can assure you this particular atheist believes in things, has values, lives up to them, et cetera.
It's awfully condescending of theists to assert atheists "don't believe in anything" simply because we believe in things other than theistic nonsense.
Would that be more or less condescending than implying theists are so easy for the .gov to brainwash because we've already naively accepted one set of dogma without thinking about it?
-
Geez, I sure seem to have stepped in it. Twice.
Let me try and explain one last time what I'm talking about before just accepting that I'm a donkey about the issue.
I guess the crux if what I'm trying to say is, people that don't think are bad citizens; be it if they are religious or atheists.
Two examples of the problem:
One's my aunt. Hardcore atheist. Believes in Homeopathy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy) Is a 9-11 truther. Believes that all diseases can be cured by chiropractors. Obviously not a thinker.
Another example would be my ex girlfriends' mother. Nightmare Christian; would probably make most people that call themselves Christian wince in pain. Banned her daughter from dating me because I am Jewish and "killed her lord". Got int an accident on the freeway when she stopped in the middle lane to pray because a "bad song came on the radio."
What I'm trying to say is, is that it's people that don't think that are bad citizens. Plenty of good citizens are both religious and atheists, so long as they think for themselves, question authority, and come to their beliefs through some type of self discovery and introspection.
I am seriously not trying to say that ALL athiests will believe in anything they hear, nor that all religuous folks will never question anything.
-
It's awfully condescending of theists to assert atheists "don't believe in anything" simply because we believe in things other than theistic nonsense.
Wow again.
I just checked and, yes, you are the guy who just said that theists are stupid, and that atheists don't make fools of themselves by discussing religion. Maybe get off the high horse?
Please try not to be so glaringly wrong, offensive, simple-minded and pompous all in one thread. It hurts my brain, and it makes your fellow no-religionists look bad.
IBTL.
-
*whew*
For a minute I thought Jfruser went along with that crap. My respect-O-meter nearly shorted out.
That being said, I can think of at least two atheists off the top of my head who I have met personally that are complete idiots that believe any number of ludicrous things, and are in general pretty worthless people.
Then there is my father, who is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, more skeptical than I'll ever completely understand, and is still an ardent theist.
Not exactly a scientific survey, but I think it's indicative of a good mixing of intelligence and morality across this one-issue border. (One sprinkled with emotion land mines, as is apparent.)
-
You are a master of unintentional humor.
And you sir are a master of ad hominem wise-ass comments that don't address anything substantial.
I posit that one born, raised, and living in a culture that embraces a dogmatic faith-based belief system must have at least some critical thinking skills in order to reject that belief system.
And your rebuttal is what exactly, sir?
-
So . . .
The actual issue seems to be, is morality a function of religious belief?
Is that the essence of the OP question, or is there more to it?
Not being a Paleoanthropologist, I can't pretend to have a firm grasp of the historical nuances and all, but it seems to me that survival of the tribe would have dictated the earliest morality.
Religion, in various forms, seems to have been a double-edged sword, on the one hand serving to provide a framework for codifying morality (laws, if you will), while on the other hand providing a means for a self-selected elite to exert power and authority -- that is control -- over a population.
An argument can be made, therefore, that morality predates religion.
On the gripping hand, however, there is the little issue of where life comes from in the first place, and the (for lack of a better word) native morality instilled by that source of life.
In which case, morality predates formal religion, but not the Creator.
Morality in the absence of a grasp of the Creator's role? Possible. In fact, I'd stipulate that it's baked in.
I would go as far as to postulate that morality is a native property of life engendered by a Creator, and that life really doesn't get to opt out.
Evil (again, lack of a better word) would be an acquired thing, overlaid on a native morality.
Thus whether a person BELIEVES in a creator, a different creator, no creator, or the impossibility of a creator . . . the native morality attribute cares not -- a little along of the lines of gravity not caring whether it's believed in -- and (acquired evil overlays notwithstanding) the person will exhibit moral behavior within the framework in which he finds himself.
So, from this synthesis (yes, I just made it up), I might conclude that Atheists can't help it.
They're pretty much stuck with morality as default, unless something else displaces it.
Yes, I do understand that the above is a very naive and shallow analysis.
Try not to take it too seriously.
-
Now which Greek or Roman was it that said that the effects of religion were so good for society that if the gods didn't exist we would have to invent them? I've got the quote around here somewhere.
-
I posit that one born, raised, and living in a culture that embraces a dogmatic faith-based belief system must have at least some critical thinking skills in order to reject that belief system.
There are a number of very obvious rebuttals. First, your position seems to beg the question by assuming that atheism is in fact the logical outcome of critical thought.
In the culture you describe, a person is just as likely to become an atheist through simple contrarianism, or some emotional need to challenge authority. Or, they might attempt to approach the question logically, but through a lack of critical thinking skills, arrive at a poorly-supported atheist conclusion. (Even if atheism is in fact correct.)
But here in the modern Western world, where we do NOT embrace a dogmatic faith-based belief in religion, individuals may become atheists by uncritically accepting authority (parents, teachers, books, television). Or they might be subject to peer pressure in certain circles that encourage atheism.
-
And you sir are a master of ad hominem wise-ass comments that don't address anything substantial.
I posit that one born, raised, and living in a culture that embraces a dogmatic faith-based belief system must have at least some critical thinking skills in order to reject that belief system.
And your rebuttal is what exactly, sir?
I think the rebuttal to that would be your own statement earlier:
But there are millions of people in this country that lack critical thinking skills. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a single atheist among them.
So no atheist has a lack of critical thinking skills? Isn't that arguing the absurd as well as a bit of prejudice, which is itself proof of a failure of critical thinking skills?
The article doesn't do theists much good. This thread doesn't do atheists much good either. Both point to an arrogance and ignorant or willful misrepresentations of the other side.
-
For a minute I thought Jfruser went along with that crap. My respect-O-meter nearly shorted out.
Well, I was more interested in the thought process of the article author and some topics he raised than a "yes" or "no" answer.
Which is one reason I went to the trouble of posting the text in its entirety, rather than a drive-by link/post.
And you sir are a master of ad hominem wise-ass comments that don't address anything substantial.
I posit that one born, raised, and living in a culture that embraces a dogmatic faith-based belief system must have at least some critical thinking skills in order to reject that belief system.
And your rebuttal is what exactly, sir?
Sorry, the humor in your first post was rich and could be a bad parody written by a theist to discredit atheists.
fistful and buzz-knox have done good job of rebutting your premise both logically and empirically.
-
So . . .
The actual issue seems to be, is morality a function of religious belief?
Is that the essence of the OP question, or is there more to it?
I think that the article author believes something along these lines, though that is not his point in the article (which is more along the line of, "atheists do not have faith or allegiance in something outside themselves and such is a necessary but insufficient requirement to be a good citizen.") Because, in the author's logic, good citizenship implies passing the culture/society on to following generations and atheists do not have the moral framework to explain why our particular culture is good to those that follow or defend it against its detractors.
I think that self-declared atheists can have a moral code (and be good citizens). That comports with what I have experienced. But, IMO, every "atheist good citizen" I have encountered has some faith that can not be supported by logic & reason alone. That belief might be in the founding documents (a secular faith similar to Lincoln's before his presidency), the non-aggression principle, love of liberty for all, fair play, etc. Barring some such faith, my answer in "No, they can not be a good citizen," as they lack the necessary moral sense that will, at times, place the well-being of others above one's own self-interest.
In a large society such as our own, logic, reason, and empiricism show that a purely amoral, self-interested outlook is the one most likely to result in the greatest material success/comfort for the individual. Convicted criminals, those who most obviously display such an outlook, have (on average) below-mean intelligence. IOW, they are not very good at what they do. As a cop buddy of mine (of very high intelligence, himself) says, "We only catch the dumb crooks. The intelligent ones rarely come to our notice beyond the effects of their crime on the rest of us."
The above-average intelligence, self-interested, and amoral person likely will never come to the notice of law enforcement. The wicked do, indeed, prosper...if they are not idiots and can manage risk. Our political class is full of such bright, amoral folk, though we must not think they are confined to politics. Most of us have seen the smart, amoral climber who is smart enough to genuflect to those that can harm him, but merely uses and discards those who have not such authority.
Actions such as having children, giving a tithe, foregoing occupations or opportunities due to moral qualms will not maximize one's material success. They indicate a sub-optimal course of action for the individual and can not be supported by reason or logic unburdened by faith or morality.
My worry, supported by what has occurred in W Europe, is that the faith such "good citizen" atheists have is not sustainable. Such deracinated faith dies out and the question, "Why is our culture better than any other or worth preserving?" is no longer academic, but pandemic. Such secular faith draws on the capital/tradition/etc. of more comprehensive faith, but does not produce enough to pass down to preserve and grow the culture.
-
i'm really glad i got most my two cents in before this started going way downhill.
i will say that the quailties that make a good citizen stem more from how one was raised then any particular dogma one was raised with.
those who think about right and wrong and understand rules usually do better then those who just blindly follow. both atheist and religous folk fall in each catogory.
think about it, how many who support those who many of us despise because we believe they will want the populance to follow with what they think best are atheist? (yes i know that was a bit garbled, but i'm avoiding naming names)
i think a good citizen is someone who takes care of there own business and is respectful to those around him/her. its someone who is willing to help out on a personal level and follows the rules that make sense and fights through the proper channels those rules that are arbitrary or wrong.
so how about that? (if this manages to start a battle i'm just going to start bashing my head on the table)
-
It would seem to me that moralistic atheism could not exist unless there would have been some sort pre-existing theistic moral underpinning to be an example.
My reasoning for this is that my observation is that one does not have to teach children bad behavior. It seems they come by it naturally. Conversely, children do need to be civilized and taught to be moral and ethical. So if there was not some pre-existing moral or ethical code anarchy would reign. It seems to me that some sort of au priori belief in a supreme being or power, outside of self, needs to be present to have instilled the first imprint of a moral or ethical code.
One example would be that since ethics, morals, rightness and wrongness have been weakened rather than being promoted in public schools, we have seen a growing lack in ethics, morals and the grasp of rightness and wrongness in our youth. However, as that youth becomes more independent and moves into adulthood, they pick up the desire for ethical and moral behavior because of the example of others, many, perhaps the majority of whom, are theistic.
Just my simplistic two cents worth.
-
I posit that one born, raised, and living in a culture that embraces a dogmatic faith-based belief system must have at least some critical thinking skills in order to reject that belief system.
There are a number of very obvious rebuttals. First, your position seems to beg the question by assuming that atheism is in fact the logical outcome of critical thought.
I'm currently working my way (slowly -- sux having no free time) through the works of one C.S. Lewis.
Lewis, as is well known, was a self-proclaimed Atheist who set out to debunk God and Christianity (I'm probably over simplifying, but that's essentially how it started).
Lewis is a smart, rational man. Friggin' genius, if you ask me.
What Lewis produced is some of the best reasoned explorations of morality and faith that I've ever seen.
When he was done, C.S. Lewis had become one of the staunchest advocates for the existence of God and the value of faith on record -- without once taking the path of "because I said so" dogma to make his point.
He's written a lot of stuff, all if it quite readable.
I'm not going to go all "appeal to authority" on you here, but a reading of anything he's written pretty much dispels the "critical thought leads to Atheism" argument.
-
What would be a good starting point of Mr. Lewis' work?
-
Mere Christianity would be a good starting point. Then I suppose I would follow it up with Christian Reflections.
PS: On Ethics: "Obviously it is moral codes that create questions of casuistry, just as the rules of chess create chess problems. The man without a moral code, like the animal, is free from moral problems. The man who has not learned to count is free from mathematical problems. A man asleep is free from all problems..."
C.S. Lewis
-
What would be a good starting point of Mr. Lewis' work?
Mere Christianity, as mentioned. I'd also mention Lee Strobel as a fairly good logical resource. Have to look through my library when I get home, been too long since I was into apologetics.
I remember seeing a large book years ago that consisted of essays by subject matter experts in the various hard sciences about the logical defense of Creationism against very specific scientific objections. I tried to read it, but advanced biochemistry and astrophysics were a bit over my (14 y/o or so) head. Anyone know what it was?
-
Ok so let me get this straight.
The rebuttal is "atheists dont have critical thinking skills, most of them are just rebelling against their parents or something"?
That is just as childish as me saying "theists dont have critical thinking skills because they are just accepting what their parents taught them without thinking about it," which I would never say.
Two people can easily use some logic, and some critical thinking to arrive at two completely different conclusions.
As for the "here in the West our culture does not presuppose a belief system" argument, I don't even know where to start. If by "the west" you mean Europe, you would be right. Western Europe is the most secular region on the planet.
Here in the U.S., however, Christianity is presupposed. If you are white, black or hispanic, when you meet a new person, they dont ask you "are you a theist or an atheist?" They ask you "what church do you go to?"
Religion (especialy Christianity) is constantly reinforced in every spectrum of our society.
Or maybe you are one of those Christians who have this weird impression that religion is constantly under attack in America, when in fact it is the most solidly religious (and growing even moreso) country in the industrialized world. If you are one of those people, all I have to say is "oh please."
Maybe it has to do with my experience. I know a lot of atheists, and I do not know any who were raised by atheist parents.
-
Wow, there is some real narrow mindedness going on here...
As an atheist here is my take on it.
My "morality" is based in large part on self preservation. The society I live in for what ever reason has certain expectations or rules regarding proper behavior. I follow those rules in part to avoid getting in to trouble and potentially being subject to a loss of liberty. By following those rules I also am able to make a living for myself and my family (passing on of the genes). The basic core of my morality is "My right to swing my arms ends where your nose begins" I expect and demand the same consideration of those around me.
I won't attempt to force my will on another in part because I do not want someone else to attempt to force their will on me but I will resist such force if it is attempted, violently if needed. Anarchy is not conducive to peaceful living and successful child rearing (again passing on the genes).
I’m a veteran, I like our way of life in the USA and want to protect it. I believe it is the (for me) best way of life this world has to offer for me and my children. I did my part to help preserve it.
I don’t care what you do so long as it does not negatively affect me and mine. Once again I expect and require the same from those around me.
I don’t care what your religious beliefs are. They’re yours, feel free to keep them to yourself and I will keep mine to myself. Denigrate mine and you might expect for me to denigrate yours. But, I probably won’t because it just really doesn’t matter, unless you try to force your beliefs on me.
There are things I do that benefit society as a whole, civic organizations, charities and such. Those things help preserve society and help prevent anarchy.
Live and let live. You mind your business and I’ll mind mine. And sometimes we can work together for our mutual benefit.
-
"and we do so, thank you kindly, without feeling obliged to pontificate on the topic of theism."
Oh really?
Ever hear of Madeline Murray O'Hair?
Lord knows that she NEVER pontificated on the topic of theism. ;/
Get real.
"when you meet a new person, they dont ask you "are you a theist or an atheist?" They ask you "what church do you go to?"
Really?
I've met thousands of new people in my personal and professional lives over the years, ranging from small, rural towns to large urban areas, and I have NEVER been asked that question.
-
"and we do so, thank you kindly, without feeling obliged to pontificate on the topic of theism."
Oh really?
Ever hear of Madeline Murray O'Hair?
Lord knows that she NEVER pontificated on the topic of theism. ;/
Get real.
Richard Dawkins anyone? I won't say that no theist has ever written a work proposing that raising a child without religious values is de facto abusive, but if they have it did not receive anywhere near the attention Dawkins has garnered.
"when you meet a new person, they dont ask you "are you a theist or an atheist?" They ask you "what church do you go to?"
Really?
I've met thousands of new people in my personal and professional lives over the years, ranging from small, rural towns to large urban areas, and I have NEVER been asked that question.
I've only been asked this at large religious conferences attented by a number of different churches.
-
i have been asked a few times by those who are very christian, 'what church do you go too?'
usually, the correct answer if you don't go to church is "i don't go to church."
i usually also find that those who ask that question are those who can't conseive of "normal" people not being christian.
and they tend to be very few and far between.
i find that atheist don't generally assume others are also atheist. mostly because atheist are in the minority. where as christians are pretty commen to come across.
which is why i don't get offended.
now i have a question. how come anytime religion/atheism comes up, certain folks on here seem to be about ready to trade blows?
and as for the insults, errrr, BOTH sides of the argument has been trading them for some time.
-
"I've only been asked this at large religious conferences attented by a number of different churches."
Bingo.
It's a questions that is asked in logically appropriate situations, not as a general rule of thumb.
It's not unlike people attending a party and the men asking each other "what do you do/where do you work?"
-
"now i have a question. how come anytime religion/atheism comes up, certain folks on here seem to be about ready to trade blows?
and as for the insults, errrr, BOTH sides of the argument has been trading them for some time."
Religion and politics.
The two topics most likely to turn otherwise rational people into raging lunatics.
-
i find that atheist don't generally assume others are also atheist. mostly because atheist are in the minority. where as christians are pretty commen to come across.
The atheists I've met generally assume that their faith in a different non-empirically provable belief system means they are intellectually superior to theists. Several of the atheist posters to this thread have demonstrated this very well.
-
The atheists I've met generally assume that their faith in a different non-empirically provable belief system means they are intellectually superior to theists. Several of the atheist posters to this thread have demonstrated this very well.
and some christians assume all atheist are rotten scumbags who don't believe in anything of value.
there are always two sides to a predjudice.
mike, that you for that reminder of a fundamental truth. *chuckle*
-
I'm from the U.K, and while of course that alone makes it a different story, I can't ever recall meeting new people and them asking me about what Church I go to or what Religion I adhere to.
-
OK, I don't have a very good feeling about where this is going to go.
So, I'm going to invoke the blessing my kind and benevolent God and close this thread.
For you athiests, I'll involke the blessing of my kind and benevolent Dog and close this thread.
-
You worship your dog?