UPDATE: All Comments are in moderation.
UPDATE II: Readers might also enjoy “A God Shaped Void? Maybe Not.” From May ’06.
(Lalli recently wrote on the challenge of being an atheist parent.)
Gone are the days when a high school or college atheist felt alone. Now close to 1 in 5 Americans are on the “godless” plan.
The ARIS study (see link in the post or this link at USA today) says that those with “no religion” have doubled in less than 20 years; growing by almost 10% a decade. Look at America in 2050 if that growth rate continues at even half that speed: a third of the country will be “godless.”
If evangelicals and other Christians had their heads about them, they would welcome this development. No religion beats meaningless adherence to religion every time. I see this every day. I work with dozens of students with a cultural adherence to a particular “Christian” religion. They overwhelmingly know almost nothing of Jesus, nothing of the Bible, nothing but a collection of cultural traditions, legends and superstitions about Christianity, but they consider themselves Christians.
When it comes to my job as a Christian communicator, give me the students who are “non-religious” over sorting through cultural adherence and dead superstition. (OK atheists, I can hear you snickering. Control yourselves. It’s still my blog.)
But evangelicals have spent a large part of the post-war era villianizing atheists and the non-religious. Sometimes out of manipulation. Sometimes out of ignorance. Sometimes out of fear. Always out of an abandonment of a Jesus shaped view of those who are not Christians.
We’ve been fed the kind of exaggerations and over-reactions about “the non-religious” that ought to make us ashamed. We’ve bought into all these grand fears that we are going to lose “our” country to “them.” Somehow, a lot of Christians agree with Lalli’s citation of former VP George H.W. Bush: “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.”
Lalli says that the atheist next door wants to live peacefully. They want to be accepted by their religious friends and families. They want to participate as full members of society and be part of the “common public good” we all want to achieve together.
Of course, some evangelicals won’t hear that, and Lalli has some idea why. She knows it’s a two way street when it comes to hostility toward one another:
Some atheists out there might wish to de-convert believers, pull them away from their faith or disprove their gods, and it is true that those are the atheists who write the books that make the best-seller lists. Indeed, Richard Dawkins and his The God Delusion ilk have made a pretty penny stirring this controversy. But many of us — dare I say most of us — would prefer coexisting over combat.
But is that really possible? To read the blogs that discuss such issues, you’d be tempted to say no. In fact, when I wrote a piece about raising my children without a specific religion — published in this newspaper — readers on the website responded with some support as well as some lacerating condemnation, such as “you are abdicating your role as a parent,” and worse, “without God, we are nothing.” In fact, whenever I have published anything about being an atheist, I have had to stop reading my e-mails from people of faith who — oh, the irony — say things that are very hateful.
I know the feeling. When I write reasonably about atheists, I get mail saying I’m about to become one. When atheists wrote me during my fifteen minutes of fame last month, they were divided between reasonable people commending me and hate-filled scary people talking about herding all religious people into camps and “getting rid” of us.
I’m concerned that the atheist community will find the temptation for “cultural revenge to be strong. I won’t be surprised at all if we’re about to enter a period where Christians will find a vocal, powerful minority of empowered atheists prepared to harass and even persecute.
Both sides have extremists whom the media love to get on the air to jack up ratings. Talk radio loves the extremists. But do they represent what most of us think?
I can accept that there are 60 million non-religious in America. I trust that they have no more desire to eliminate my religious faith than I do their unbelief, but I want to know if their claims of acceptance extent into the practice of my religion? Are Christians going to be viewed as brain washers and child abusers? Will religious communities be attacked by violent nut jobs? If so, what will the non-religious community have to say? Will my rights to oppose gay marriage remain part of my political rights as a citizen, or will it automatically make me a danger to society?
I think it’s fair for non-religious to ask if their kids can be free of harassment in public schools? Can an atheist openly speak of atheism without being lynched in the press or Christian media? Can unbelievers pursue their rights to avoid public demonstrations of religion for their children and themselves?
I hear Lalli’s experience, but I’m not sure any of us know what tolerance looks like.
I have some ideas:
1. Let’s stop getting together to debate and let’s get together to talk about what we have in common.
2. Let’s both clearly and consistently distance ourselves from the extremists and manipulators.
3. Let’s find a way to do things together that we both believe are important. Why can’t atheists and Christians feed the homeless and work on rights on conscience issues together?
4. Let’s go to the other team’s gatherings and describe our concerns and points of view in each other’s presence, without name calling.
5. Let’s treat one another like Jesus would. I think even atheists would sign on for that.
We need to make a start. Christians and non-religious are going to be two very large communities in American. Can we find a way to exist in the real world, with real mutual interests, or are we cauht in a cycle of hateful rhetoric and misrepresentation?
The Internet Monk Archives 
I am a Christian. My best pal Dave is an atheist. (No kidding)But the one thing about it is, if he can’t get a hold of me by my cellphone, the one place he knows where to find me is at church. He’ll come into my church, see I’m there and sit down til service is over. After Church we hang out and we do our thing. I know he’s atheist, he knows I’m Christian. We’re comfy in our situation. If he’s going to be converted, it’s going to be the power of God. Not me.
LikeLike
A fairly major difference between (some) Christians and PZ Myers is shown in the responses to cracker-gate.
What PZ did was offensive to many people. Nobody has ever denied that. But he actually harmed nobody. Nobody had any rights taken away from them as a result of his actions. Nobody lost their job.
However, he did recieve emails and mails from people who wanted him fired, who wanted him arrested, who even wanted him dead.
Now, in that situation WHO was persecuted?
LikeLike
Patrick Lynch
No Christian (and really, nobody) should be surprised when our religious landscape begins to resemble those of other secularizing countries and the Christian in the US begins to encounter the same hostility that our co-religionists in some other nations do today. In gaze of history, peaceful Christians being persecuted is a fairly common occurrence – we’ll be marginalized in the US eventually. It’s not because we’re special. How bad will it get for us depends not on any inherent reasonableness of the atheist position but on the political motives of whoever benefits by stirring or abeying sentiment against Christians. Same as any other group.
ME
I wouldn’t suggest as you do that there is necessarily a correlation between secularization and persecution of Christians. Sweden, France, Britain, Australia, and other countries have quite large atheist populations and I don’t think believers are being persecuted in those countries.
I guess I have trouble stepping into your shoes and seeing this future political oppression of Christians. I mean, in a country where every President has professed faith in the last 35 years and a Congress made up of predominantly believing men and women, I just don’t see it. Can’t forget those things called the Constitution and Bill of Rights either.
Patrick Lynch
“And my point about Communist membership cards got lost in translation, but it’s simple: all it takes to get a genocide going is for people to agree that it’s for the best. Oppression doesn’t need a lot of people with strong beliefs to enact – it needs a few people who want it to make it impossible for a large group of people to coherently object to it. See: Gitmo. Oppression isn’t inherently ‘religious’ or ‘atheistic’ so much, just conspiratorial.
In your mind, persecution is a rather remote and distasteful thing to have associated with your beliefs. Most of us feel the same way about the sins of our co-religionists. Nobody remembers a time in the US where atheists were openly discriminated against – but living in the US today are thousands of ex-pats who escaped countries that banned their religions and tried to kill them.”
Me
I suppose when you can show me that the current atheist “movement” shares common political goals like abolishing the First Amendment I will become concerned about a coming scourge against people of faith.
I am so glad you are privy to the contents of my mind, it is always so nice to be stereotyped based on the assumptions of an other. For the record, you have no inkling of my beliefs and what I feel about them. If I am not mistaken the only sure thing you know about me is that I don’t believe in gods, and I think the bloggers fear of an impending atheist revenge on believers is based more in fantasy than anything.
The probable reason no one remembers an organized persecution of atheists is because McCarthyism has been regulated to the closet of forgetfulness in America.
I will admit, it is harder to persecute a fraction of the population when they try to blend in among the faithful masses to avoid being jailed or worse. We might as well praise Christians for no longer burning witches while we are at it, since they now show enormous restraint to be tolerant of powers they no longer believe in (at least in America, Africa is another story). 😉
I think we can both agree that persecution is distasteful and should be discouraged regardless of it’s association with belief or non-belief.
Patrick Lynch
“When a Dawkins or a PZ Meyers tries to make a name for themselves by disrespecting religious people, they leave as bad an impression with us as the God Hates Fags people does with .. everybody.
I’m not familiar with any ‘myriads’ of people who pathologically fear and distrust atheists; then again, I don’t know many Fundamentalists. But I will say that one Richard Dawkins wields more respect and influence than 10,000 scared hillbilly Americans holed up in their churches, which does translate to political influence – also, I don’t know if you know this, but the guy started an atheist movement. So, yeah, I would say that it’s likely that a few amplified objecting voices may come to outweigh the combined bleating of an American heartland full of sheep – they won’t be ‘few’ for long, in any case.”
ME
Meyers, if we are referring to his requests for communion wafers, was being inflammatory. I would need examples on Dawkins because every time I have seen videos of him, he has been a most gracious and decent person.
I agree that the inflammatory rhetoric is not helpful for any of us who would like to share the same country in a atmosphere of tolerance and peacefulness.
As for your observation on fundamentalism being a weak political force, I highly recommend you search out a few, befriend them and educate yourself. You have obviously been living in another country than the one I inhabit if you really think Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris are even close to mustering anything like the political influence held by the likes of Liberty University, The American Family Association, John Hagee, and Pat Robertson. There is no comparison.
Tell me you are joking when you say Dawkins outweighs the thousands of churches that home school their children using revisionist materials that say America was founded as a Christian nation and it is their duty to retake it from the evil liberal atheists who want separation of church and state.
I would recommend the websight Talk2Action if you seriously don’t know about how the Christian right has been on a mission to make their version of Christianity the law of our land.
Apart from the whole whether gods exist or not, I think we can both agree on the dangers of fanatics exercising power over our nation, whether they are believers or unbelievers. 🙂
LikeLike
I am not sure where you inferred from anything I said that I think Marxism or stateism were a desirable thing, and I don’t think I insinuated that the killing fields or Stalin’s exploits were somehow less offensive because of the Crusades or Inquisition.”
You didn’t; I brought it up to pre-empt any claim that religious people should have nothing to fear from non-religious people.
“So really, in the context of the American experience, you don’t think my comments had any merit at all? Christians really are being or soon will be the object of persecution that the author was expressing fear of?”
Oh, well yeah – in the “American experience” of today, I think you’re totally sensible. I don’t live in fear of persecution, and I think people that claim to are at least probably alarmist.
“Persecution is being equivocated with offending certain sensibilities and I find it dishonest and laughable that certain Christians attempt to frame things this way.”
I think that’s stupid too; in a religion that loves to remember people for being burned alive, it’s ridiculous that Christians want to get litigious over being told ‘no’ every once in awhile.
But the “American experience” you’re thinking of, of political friendliness towards Christianity and general adherence, isn’t an internationally common phenomenon, not nationally long-standing, and isn’t even stable today.
Research the state of American Christianity before the Baptists and the Methodists got ahold of it, or how politically welcomed the Catholic Christians were made to feel during their first hundred years here. Read up on church growth patterns in the 19th century; the political reality behind that overblown myth of a 1950’s apple-pie Christian piety took a hell of a long time to grow from nothing and has fallen apart more or less completely in a few decades.
No Christian (and really, nobody) should be surprised when our religious landscape begins to resemble those of other secularizing countries and the Christian in the US begins to encounter the same hostility that our co-religionists in some other nations do today. In gaze of history, peaceful Christians being persecuted is a fairly common occurrence – we’ll be marginalized in the US eventually. It’s not because we’re special. How bad will it get for us depends not on any inherent reasonableness of the atheist position but on the political motives of whoever benefits by stirring or abeying sentiment against Christians. Same as any other group.
And my point about Communist membership cards got lost in translation, but it’s simple: all it takes to get a genocide going is for people to agree that it’s for the best. Oppression doesn’t need a lot of people with strong beliefs to enact – it needs a few people who want it to make it impossible for a large group of people to coherently object to it. See: Gitmo. Oppression isn’t inherently ‘religious’ or ‘atheistic’ so much, just conspiratorial.
In your mind, persecution is a rather remote and distasteful thing to have associated with your beliefs. Most of us feel the same way about the sins of our co-religionists. Nobody remembers a time in the US where atheists were openly discriminated against – but living in the US today are thousands of ex-pats who escaped countries that banned their religions and tried to kill them.
When a Dawkins or a PZ Meyers tries to make a name for themselves by disrespecting religious people, they leave as bad an impression with us as the God Hates Fags people does with .. everybody.
I’m not familiar with any ‘myriads’ of people who pathologically fear and distrust atheists; then again, I don’t know many Fundamentalists. But I will say that one Richard Dawkins wields more respect and influence than 10,000 scared hillbilly Americans holed up in their churches, which does translate to political influence – also, I don’t know if you know this, but the guy started an atheist movement. So, yeah, I would say that it’s likely that a few amplified objecting voices may come to outweigh the combined bleating of an American heartland full of sheep – they won’t be ‘few’ for long, in any case.
LikeLike
To build on Brian’s point, many people are suspicious of Christian volunteers because they think the Christians are only doing it so they get the chance to evangelize.
If a Christian only acts charitable because they’re commanded to do so, while an atheist does it because they feel it’s the right thing to do, who is the better person?
I worked for a large Fortune 50 company whose employees did lots of work in crisis ares, out there with chainsaws and such, with the total support of the company.
It’s a little demeaning to call that “atheist rhetoric” because it wasn’t driven by a religious organization. In fact, many of those working were not Christians at all.
LikeLike
>â€Why can’t atheists and Christians feed the homeless and work on rights on conscience issues together?â€
Timothy
While this sounds nice, I’ve never seen any physical evidence of these works by organized atheists. Where are the atheist men’s chainsaw crews after storms? Where is the atheist women’s society canteen truck?
In the midst of mayhem, I find Catholics, Baptists, Salvation Army and others, but no atheist groups.
Its just so much atheist rhetoric for now.
I hope no one thinks I am just posting here to argue, but it is comments like this that show the prevalent attitude among Christians that atheists are a bunch of selfish and misanthropic bastards.
Your biggest error is to think that atheism is an ideology at all. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Period. It has no creeds, dogma, organizational structure or anything else.
You might as well complain of a lack of charities started by those who don’t believe in ghosts.
The reason there are few atheist charities might be related to the fact that, until recently, atheists consisted of less than 12% of the total population. However, to say that atheists do not care about helping others is ignorant.
There are organizations that have no religious agenda that help others and do so without the ulterior motive of trying to “save” peoples souls.
To name a few
UNICEF
Red Cross
Bell and Melinda Gates Foundation
Amnesty International
United Way
Doctors without Borders
Believe it or not, there are people who think helping others is worthy in and of itself and don’t feel compelled to do so because some ancient book told them to do it.
But don’t take my word for it, try doing a little research before making hasty generalizations about people who don’t share your beliefs.
We all might get along much better if you attempt a bit of charity when speaking about us godless, baby eating heathens. 🙂
LikeLike
>”Why can’t atheists and Christians feed the homeless and work on rights on conscience issues together?”
While this sounds nice, I’ve never seen any physical evidence of these works by organized atheists. Where are the atheist men’s chainsaw crews after storms? Where is the atheist women’s society canteen truck?
In the midst of mayhem, I find Catholics, Baptists, Salvation Army and others, but no atheist groups.
Its just so much atheist rhetoric for now.
LikeLike
Patrick Lynch
“If you want to get technical, Christianity’s done most of it’s persecuting against Believers who disagreed with them, not ‘UN’-believers.”
ME
I suppose credit is due that atheists that didn’t openly exist were not persecuted by Christians when they were burning each other alive. I stand corrected. 😉
My emphasis was more on the knee jerk cries of “persecution” from those who have their beliefs challenged by those who don’t share them. For example when the musical “Proposition 8” with Jack Black came out, I got e-mail from the Christian Anti Defamation Commission pointing out this “persecution” of Christians.
Persecution is being equivocated with offending certain sensibilities and I find it dishonest and laughable that certain Christians attempt to frame things this way. Here in NC there was talk of overturning “blue laws” and Christians freaked like they were being subjected to horrible torture. Any objection to their enforced values is seen as an attack and the evil unbeliever is trying to destroy their faith.
See where I am going with this? 🙂
Patrick Lynch
“Sigh.
Rationalism doesn’t make people rational: modern times have seen atheist governments persecuting religious believers of all types… Socialism (a word reduced to scare quotes today) is just one atheist philosophy that’s purged MILLIONS of people of all faiths as it’s spread across the world.
We’ve got to stop being glib about this stuff.
China persecutes Christians. TODAY. The USSR violently suppressed religion at its height. Albania? The Khmer Rouge?
Come on, dude.
These references represent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
The word ‘gulag’ itself IS a reference to the modern, systematic violent persecution of people for their beliefs – by relativist rationalists in power.
If the only objection to that is “…but but but religious folks have killed MORE people..†then you’re not seeing the big picture here.
The VERY FIRST self-declared atheist states killed religious people as a matter of process. Atheism doesn’t ‘make’ people kill each other: people find all kinds of great pragmatic or philosophical reasons to do so on their own. That’s the story of humanity. The USSR may be gone and China may be reorganizing a little, but humanity is not going to change. Violence and prejudice are GREAT ways to get things done: of COURSE Christians (and everybody else) will (continue to) be persecuted for what they believe in.”
ME
Well, I am glad we both agree that a secular constitutional republic government is a desirable thing for a free and tolerant society.
I am not sure where you inferred from anything I said that I think Marxism or stateism were a desirable thing, and I don’t think I insinuated that the killing fields or Stalin’s exploits were somehow less offensive because of the Crusades or Inquisition.
I still think the possibility of atheist run American gulags is a lot less likely than theocratic run ones based on the recent history of religious ideologues infiltrating all levels of government. Maybe we read the political landscape quite differently.
Patrick Lynch
“The reason Dawkins and others are viewed with suspicion by Christians is because whenever somebody gets famous by decaring a population irrelevant or hopelessly backwards, it’s ALWAYS A BAD THING FOR THAT GROUP.
See: Germans:Jews. Dutch:Africans.”
ME
So, you really don’t see the numeric disparity between a couple of voices speaking against religion and the myriads who have constantly painted those of no faith as evil and enemies of all things “righteous”?
I think the last numbers I saw showed 12% of the U.S. population were considered atheist/agnostic. I am not sure how that boils down to strong vs. weak atheists but I think we can both agree that any “atheist rage” the author might fear as a possibility has a very small base of the population to work with even if they were interested in a systematic oppression of believes.
Patrick Lynch
“What “atheist community†are you referring to? I think they forgot to send me my membership card. ;)â€
For effect: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Communist_Party_of_USSR_membership_card_(edit).jpg
Not that Communism and atheism are the same thing at all, but the fact that in at least one recent historical instance you had to officially renounce religious faith in order to GET A MEMBERSHIP CARD is, I hope, instructive.
It’s always been playground rules.”
ME
Maybe you missed the 😉 in that comment. The entire point of it was there is no “atheist community” that I know of. Atheism alone is no grounds for any political position. I know atheists that subscribe to politics that lean left and right and a good many in the middle.
Believe it or not, many atheists think a constitutional republic is a good form of government and that the separation of church and state and the fist amendment are admirable.
So really, in the context of the American experience, you don’t think my comments had any merit at all? Christians really are being or soon will be the object of persecution that the author was expressing fear of?
Check out the Christian Anti Defamation Commission web page and tell me if you think they have a case. I would also like to know the scriptural justification for an organization that exists to protect believers from “persecution”. I think the Sermon on the Mount teaches the exact opposite of Dr. Cass’s mission statement. But, then again, I might be fuzzy on my New Testament. 😉
LikeLike
Donalbain: “Socialism is NOT atheist.”
=
Patrick Lynch: “Not that Communism and atheism are the same thing at all” …
You get my meaning though, even if I did interchange ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ in there somewhere. My bad. I did speak somewhat sloppily.
Socialism isn’t necessarily inherently atheist. Many occasions where they’ve connected in the past have been notably horrible.
My main point, being mainly that atheists, under whatever philosophical or pragmatic guise, have proved as likely to gather together and persecute as anybody of another creed, still stands. That’s just what people like to do.
LikeLike
Socialism (a word reduced to scare quotes today) is just one atheist philosophy
Socialism is NOT atheist. You can have secular, atheist or theist socialisms. Remember, Marx got his phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” from the Bible!
LikeLike
“I find it sadly amusing that a movement that has been the biggest persecutor of unbelievers throughout the centuries has the audacity to cry “Persecution†if anyone questions their right to primacy in our society.”
If you want to get technical, Christianity’s done most of it’s persecuting against Believers who disagreed with them, not ‘UN’-believers.
“I hope no one thinks I am being a bit harsh here, but I don’t see gulags populated by Christians in the forecast.”
Sigh.
Rationalism doesn’t make people rational: modern times have seen atheist governments persecuting religious believers of all types… Socialism (a word reduced to scare quotes today) is just one atheist philosophy that’s purged MILLIONS of people of all faiths as it’s spread across the world.
We’ve got to stop being glib about this stuff.
China persecutes Christians. TODAY. The USSR violently suppressed religion at its height. Albania? The Khmer Rouge?
Come on, dude.
These references represent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
The word ‘gulag’ itself IS a reference to the modern, systematic violent persecution of people for their beliefs – by relativist rationalists in power.
If the only objection to that is “…but but but religious folks have killed MORE people..” then you’re not seeing the big picture here.
The VERY FIRST self-declared atheist states killed religious people as a matter of process. Atheism doesn’t ‘make’ people kill each other: people find all kinds of great pragmatic or philosophical reasons to do so on their own. That’s the story of humanity. The USSR may be gone and China may be reorganizing a little, but humanity is not going to change. Violence and prejudice are GREAT ways to get things done: of COURSE Christians (and everybody else) will (continue to) be persecuted for what they believe in.
The reason Dawkins and others are viewed with suspicion by Christians is because whenever somebody gets famous by decaring a population irrelevant or hopelessly backwards, it’s ALWAYS A BAD THING FOR THAT GROUP.
See: Germans:Jews. Dutch:Africans.
“What “atheist community†are you referring to? I think they forgot to send me my membership card. ;)”
For effect: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Communist_Party_of_USSR_membership_card_(edit).jpg
Not that Communism and atheism are the same thing at all, but the fact that in at least one recent historical instance you had to officially renounce religious faith in order to GET A MEMBERSHIP CARD is, I hope, instructive.
It’s always been playground rules.
LikeLike
cermak_rd
You’re right of course. But wouldn’t you say that the devotion of those martyrs to their cause was an impressive and attractive act of will, even if you don’t believe in it yourself? The distinction in Christianity with respect to martyrdom is the theological is the martyrdom of God in love and total self donation. As far as I know that’s uniquely Christian.
LikeLike
QUOTE:
“I’m concerned that the atheist community will find the temptation for “cultural revenge to be strong. I won’t be surprised at all if we’re about to enter a period where Christians will find a vocal, powerful minority of empowered atheists prepared to harass and even persecute.”
I’m sorry, but as an atheist myself, I find this comment almost laughable.
What “atheist community” are you referring to? I think they forgot to send me my membership card. 😉
In my own experience, I find atheists to be a very diverse, and often times, non cohesive bunch of individuals than any other demographic around. Think “herding cats” and you might get my drift.
Atheists do not have anything that even comes close to the social and political influence of Christianity and I seriously doubt you will see anything like it for many, many years, if at all.
In all honesty, I think tolerant believers and unbleivers have more to fear from the influence of dominionist theocrats and those who want to see Armageddon started by an attack on Iran.
Heck, to really persecute on a grand scale, atheists would need political influence akin to what evangelicals have enjoyed for decades. As atheists fall behind minorities and gays as far as electability goes, I wouldn’t start going underground just yet.
I am not sure why Christians have got all up in arms over people like Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and Dawkins. Those 4 are like a drop in the bucket compared to the steady stream of Jesus Inc. we have heard from for years.
Just consider how our culture has been saturated with Christian preaching from those such as Graham, Fallwell, Robertson, Baker, Stewart, Hagee, Lindsey, Stewart, Schuller, Hinn, Kennedy, and numerous others for decades.
I find it sadly amusing that a movement that has been the biggest persecutor of unbelievers throughout the centuries has the audacity to cry “Persecution” if anyone questions their right to primacy in our society. I mean, c’mon, do Christians really need a Anti Christian Defamation Commission to protect their sensitive egos?
I hope no one thinks I am being a bit harsh here, but I don’t see gulags populated by Christians in the forecast. Heck, I am not even comfortable using the word “atheist” to describe myself where I live out of fear of negative repercussions.
LikeLike
Christianity is not the only religion with martyrs. Through the millenia, Hindus, Jews, Jains, Sikhs, Animists, et al have suffered and died for their deity(ies).
LikeLike
Science and religion need not and should not be at odds. God gave us reasoning minds, curiosity and the powers of observation which together yield Science. Religion is expressly not demonstrable. God is not to be “put to the test”. Faith and Science conflict whenever one crosses over the border into the others turf. Whenever Science dogmatically asserts what it can not test or demonstrate it takes on a religious quality and whenever men of Faith ignore or distort the evidence to support their understanding of Scripture they are actually demonstrating a profound lack of faith, a failure to accept mystery and a distrust of Truth, which is impious because God is Truth Himself.
I wanted to add a bit about credibility, if anybody still cares. If St Francis has credibility because he gave up wealth, how much more credible is the faith of martyrs? Further since the greatest degree of credibility is gained by martyrdom it helps explain why Christ had to die on the cross. It was the only way He could have the greatest degree of credibility and therefore save the greatest number. Obvious I guess, but still worth saying.
LikeLike
currently Atheists (weak Atheists) do enjoy greater numbers in the scientific arena, and yet it is nearly impossible for Christians to be heard in that realm
No. It isn’t. A Christian can be heard just as loudly and is as welcome as a Hindu or an atheist in the scientific arena, just so long as they are doing science. What makes it hard for people to be listened to in the scientific arena is when people stop doing science and start saying “Ahhh.. but it is in my book! I dont need no steenking evidence”.
LikeLike
@This derailed thread.
“If I can talk somebody into it, somebody else can talk them out of it.” ~ Dr. Adrian Rogers
LikeLike
charlie.hr–Absolutely!!!
LikeLike
I believe in God…
I’m a follower of Jesus Christ…
I don’t have a religion. Am I an atheist for that?
I’ve been faced with better opportunities to share the Gospel since I quit my religion (I used to be evangelical), and helped many atheist friends to understand God and start a relationship with Jesus, than never before.
They key was… BE A FRIEND FIRST!
1. Know the person…
2. Share some common ground, needs, hobbies, etc.
3. Have quality time together…
When the time is right, if the Spirit leads you… share your faith!
You wont always have that moment the answer you’re expecting but you’ll be surprised of how things will eventually lead to a firm commitment to Christ. Not a religion, just Christ.
Atheist have morals, because they have a conscience.
We can argue with them about the origin of that conscience. (I believe that is the part that God put within us so we wont destroy ourselves if we were left to the dominion of our fallen nature). But at the end, if you embrace a relation based on love, and not a religious agenda, if you wont win them for Christ, at least you’ll learn how to coexist with them and still treat them as people worthy of the love of God.
Love covers tons of failures!
Have ears to hear?
Peace & LOVE!
LikeLike
J,
Maybe this question will be more interesting to you. Have you ever convinced anyone who firmly believed X that Y was true? With the stipulation that X is a serious matter not a demonstrable fact, I have never done so, not ever, not on any matter of note. In my opinion (which you’re no doubt pretty tired of) the best you can hope to do in any circumstance is to give someone who disagrees something to think about. In our posts here I was only seriously trying to deduce how far apart we are in belief and writing to organize my own thoughts. I don’t think I offered up much of anything you haven’t heard before, and I don’t expect that anything from me would be of interest to you in any case.
This gets to the fact that without standing, opinions have no weight. I have no standing with you, we have no prior history, have no common understanding of what’s important, so I expect much of what I have to say is simply not credible to you (and vice versa). So thinking aloud and changing gears back to faith, changing the mind of an atheist to a believer is likewise very nearly impossible unless you have standing. Standing, or perhaps credibility is a better term, is acquired by virtuous behavior or close familial relationship. That’s why evangelism is so hard. It’s easy to toss words at each other (I’m guilty of that charge, certainly) but hard to gain credibility and standing with your subject. St Francis was so successful because his life of poverty gave him credibility.
LikeLike
I think it would be a news flash to many Bible thumping Christians that God loves the athiest just as much as any Christian. Christians need to quit blaming all the bad PR on the “evil” news media and look at the log in their own eyes.
LikeLike
J,
You’re right I am not taking your answers too seriously, it’s just a blog after all. Our world views are so divergent there’s little point. We disagree on the basic facts so of course we’ll disagree on any conclusion as well. I have family who would probably agree with your assertions and we talk about gardening and raising children and avoid politics for that reason.
But I am truly fascinated by the fact that two people living in the same world, and given roughly the same environment can draw radically divergent conclusions. Maybe you have an insight into that.
LikeLike
*Don’t be coy, the increasing attacks on observant identifiable Jews across Europe and even at American Universities like Columbia are quite real.*
No they aren’t.
*However can you seriously equate the full rights given Israeli Arabs to anyone living in that country, let alone a Jew?*
Yes. Mostly I do it mostly by expedient of not shanghai’ing real-life people and cultures into forced duty as extras in a Great-War-for-Civilization fantasy.
*Why do you take the side of the tyrant? That’s what I’d like to know.*
I question whether you’d really like to “know” anything. You mostly seem to have made up your mind about the world–or about out-and-out paranoid fabrications regarding the world. Your questions for me, such as they are, seem mostly rhetorical, and the answers I’ve given seem mostly to be ignored in favor of what you yourself have already convinced yourself to believe. Or to fear.
LikeLike
Dawkins’ “Selfish Gene” is a good layman’s overview of what is called “Game Theory”.
When Dawkins philosophizes, he does so poorly. He makes the gene into his god (omnipotent, immortal, and all-purposeful [omni-teleological?]) – he then proceeds to rebel against that god, as he has the true God 🙂
LikeLike
Re Seventh-Day Adventists and vegetarianism, the original rationale was health rather than gnosticism. In the late 1800’s, meat, fish and current medicines could all be fairly unwholesome.
“In certain cases of illness or exhaustion it may be thought best to use some meat, but great care should be taken to secure the flesh of healthy animals. It has become a very serious question whether it is safe to use flesh food at all in this age of the world. It would be better never to eat meat than to use the flesh of animals that are not healthy.” Youth’s Instructor, 1894, Ellen White.
The Adventist Health Study and other current (non-Adventist) studies correlate vegetarianism with decreased obesity and improved health.
BTW, I am not a vegetarian.
LikeLike
@ J :
I considered not mentioning Hitchens and Dawkins by name lest I appear to be trying to strengthen my point by an ad hominem argument. I kept the comment only to agree obliquely with Lalli who also appears to want to distance the merit of her non-religiousness from some of the most ardent voices in her ‘camp’, such as Dawkins. You’re right to point out Christianity has its examples as well.
I’ve felt Hitchens has built his career — especially his anti-faith and anti-religion business such as his book “God is Not Great: How religion Poisons Everything” — on polemics, that is advancing ‘non-belief’ by iconoclasm and destructionism more than being a gracious apologist for the merits of humanism and atheism.
More broadly, I think the point is that an iconoclast can be a begrudgingly useful truth-teller like your drunk uncle or the buffoonery of a court jester. It’s a tradition as fine as the best of Shakespeare. But it’s still a poor way to win friends and influence people by smashing on the likes as Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa and Gandhi. The irony is that for Christian believers it is good to be reminded of the shortcomings of even the best among humanity. So who can totally dismiss a dour teller of truth as that person sees truth?
Still, even Jesus, from a position of non-belief, represents a worldview so philosophically distinct and mythically powerful that I think it’s just poor tactics to advance non-theism by way of criticizing Him. Some atheist critics therefore prefer to show how poor the institution and collective believers of Christianity have lived up to His ideal. Ironically how much more pragmatic support for the Christian belief ideal is there than pointing out the perpetuating reality of a non-ideal, non-self-advancing humanity? A paradox indeed.
Humanism doesn’t become more persuasive by defining it merely as a secular position, by kicking against the pricks of the very human need for mythic beauty and ‘irrationality’ of faith (to give a nod to Kierkegaard, one of my fellow Christian humanists).
LikeLike
J:
In God Delusion, Dawkins isn’t gracious. He’s ridiculous, even to other atheists.
LikeLike
Thanks Patrick.
I guess Syria is more tolerant of religion than I thought – makes sense because Baathists are really political tyrants rather than religious ones. Still wouldn’t live there voluntarily.
LikeLike
“Almost certainly. There are a couple tens of thousands of Americans living in Saudi Arabia, working for the oil companies, other businesses, as teachers, etc. I hear S.A. “imports†quite a number of instructors for their medical schools.
Syria? I dunno. But I suspect that yeah, if I kept more or less to myself, I probably could live there, start a business, practice my religion (if I had one).”
Actually J, you got it backwards.
Saudi Arabia was labeled as a Country of Particular Concern this year (“The CPC designation is for countries engaged in or tolerating “particularly severe” violations of religious freedom, which are systematic, ongoing, and egregious, including acts such as torture, prolonged detention without charges, disappearances, or “other flagrant denial[s] of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.”) by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. SA has made the list every year since 2004.
http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2369&Itemid=126
I wouldn’t want to be a Jew there; jeez, I wouldn’t even want to be an atheist there!
And Syria is actually quite tolerant officially of religious plurality; relatively peaceful even, considering the region of the world they are in. There’s a sizable and well-established Jewish population there, too.
Just sayin’.
LikeLike
J
*…although this line of “thought†has great social support especially on the left.*
It does?
Yes it does as almost any US University lecture on the Mid East will immediately reveal.
*Beating up on Jews generally and Israel especially is very fashionable in elite circles.*
It is?
Yes especially among Academics and in Universities where banning Israel imports, Israeli professors, and harassing identifiable Jews is more and more common. Just read up on the upcoming Durbin II UN meeting.
*Jews themselves are eager participants happy to trash their own to fit in among the elite.*
I am?
Not necessarily you, don’t know you that well, but I can think of a few obvious public examples like Noam Chomsky. Also I know this from my direct personal experience. Although you profess not to have a religion so I guess your what “ethnically” Jewish or “historically” Jewish? Which means what exactly? I was born Jewish by the way I am entirely familiar with the euphemisms and quasi identity you claim when convenient. I used to be in the same gray zone. Note here you claim to be Jewish in regard to setting foot in Syria but acknowledge that you have no religion. So when you went to Syria did a Jew go there really? Did the Syrians presume you were Jewish or was that hidden from them? If they had asked what would you have said?
Don’t be coy, the increasing attacks on observant identifiable Jews across Europe and even at American Universities like Columbia are quite real. I find it very hard to believe you’ve heard or read nothing about this.
Also the restrictions on religion in Saudi Arabia are very well documented. It’s their law. They make no effort to hide it or any apology for it. I can not take you seriously if you fail to acknowledge facts.
I am willing to accept that the Syrian dictatorship, which supports Hezbollah and is implicated in assassinations in Beirut, is not currently suppressing the handful of Jews who may incidentally step across its borders as tourists, perhaps it’s an oversight. However can you seriously equate the full rights given Israeli Arabs to anyone living in that country, let alone a Jew?
Why do you take the side of the tyrant? That’s what I’d like to know.
LikeLike
J, the only thing I do want to point out is that the Westerners living and working in Saudi Arabia do live in their own protected, walled compounds/communities so it’s not as though they’re living completely in among the native populace. But that’s a minor point…
LikeLike
*Did you guys catch this piece in Newsweek?*
Yes. It’s kind of wordy and meandering; the associated podcast is actually better.
LikeLike
Did you guys catch this piece in Newsweek?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583/page/1
It’s written by an Episcopalian and has a very balanced view of the ARIS stats regarding the post-christianizing of America.
LikeLike
*Still, there certainly are other atheists as ungracious as Hitchens and Dawkins.*
I’m more than a little confused about this equivocation of Richard Dawkins as being some kind of screaming fanatic. I’ve read “The Ancestor’s Tale” and “The Selfish Gene”*. I’ve also watched some of his TV shows.
And to me, Dawkins seems the soul of graciousness. I’ll have to ask for communal indulgence when I say that’s not just because I pretty much agree with him. He’s polite. He waits his turn during debates. He doesn’t return ad hominems even when they’re levelled at him. Yeah, he mocks things he finds silly or barbaric, but it’s never crude (this is *British* mockery, we’re talking about here).
I really just do not understand the easy equivocation of him as being the equal-and-opposite of Fred Phelps or something.
Heck, Dawkins has often said he’s only 9/10ths sure there’s no god. Let me know when Phelps admits he’s only 9/10ths sure god hates fags.
*Note about *The Selfish Gene* for people who have/will not read it: It is NOT about how our genes make us selfish and how that’s okay. I’ve heard that canard a billion-odd times and it’s pretty funny because it’s a pretty iron-clad piece of evidence that the person has never read the book.
LikeLike
*But could you live in Syria or Saudi Arabia? Could you own property, run a business or, most importantly, practice your religion?*
Almost certainly. There are a couple tens of thousands of Americans living in Saudi Arabia, working for the oil companies, other businesses, as teachers, etc. I hear S.A. “imports” quite a number of instructors for their medical schools.
Syria? I dunno. But I suspect that yeah, if I kept more or less to myself, I probably could live there, start a business, practice my religion (if I had one). I might expect, after not too long, to see one or more of the same Baath party secret police guys constantly hanging around outside, keeping tabs on me, but again: I’d be miffed at the government for that, not the Syrian people.
*…although this line of “thought†has great social support especially on the left.*
It does?
*Beating up on Jews generally and Israel especially is very fashionable in elite circles.*
It is?
*Jews themselves are eager participants happy to trash their own to fit in among the elite.*
I am?
LikeLike
@Memphis Aggie Beating up on Jews generally and Israel especially is very fashionable in elite circles. Jews themselves are eager participants, happy to trash their own to fit in among the elite. It was that too common offhanded unchallenged anti-Jewish slur that I was reacting to.
For what it’s worth, I apologize if I sounded anti-Semitic; I certainly didn’t mean to lump ALL Israeli Jews under the rubric of people who have a hatred for Palestinian Arabs, and after rereading what I wrote I realized I used some very poor wording.
I certainly think Israel-bashing is fashionable in some circles, but it’s not without some level of merit, and I’d like to point out that criticizing the policies of the state of Israel (or the motivations behind them) is *not* the same as being anti-Semitic. I’d like to point out that this is all tied into the debate over the morality of the Israeli government and their policies — not out of some irrational hate for Jews.
In any case, my original point was that there’s plenty of ugliness in Judaism and Islam – not just Christianity.
(Sorry, iMonk for getting this off-topic. It’s one thing to get a thread derailed into a debate on Catholicism, Homosexuality or Gay Marriage – I don’t think you even want think about having an Israel-Palestine fight on here. In my experience, debates over Homosexuality or Gay Marriage are peanuts compared to Israel vs. Palestine…)
LikeLike
Fair enough J, I expect I exaggerated with respect to Syria but it is not exaggeration in the case of Gaza. But could you live in Syria or Saudi Arabia? Could you own property, run a business or, most importantly, practice your religion? You know the answer: you cannot even bring a personal cross into Saudi Arabia legally. You are overlooking real intolerance. The “pox on both their houses” mentality is lazy thinking and slanderous, although this line of “thought” has great social support especially on the left.
Beating up on Jews generally and Israel especially is very fashionable in elite circles. Jews themselves are eager participants, happy to trash their own to fit in among the elite. It was that too common offhanded unchallenged anti-Jewish slur that I was reacting to. While one can certainly get away with it in many places where the prejudice is shared it makes it no less ugly.
What this discussion shows is that politics and prejudices are not shed simply because one says they believe.
LikeLike
Re: vegetarianism… regardless of any religious precedents, I think today most people become vegetarians due to secular moral arguments.
Patrick Lynch: “Actually, it seems to me that in the absence of God, nothing is wrong.”
Then I hope you never lose your faith.
LikeLike
Amen, iMonk.
I’d usually much rather have a belief/faith conversation with a thoughtful ‘non-believer’. Perhaps it’s because I’m open about my faith in Christ being, while I think very reasonable, also irrational where certainty is concerned. After having gone thru my “dark night of the soul” certainty doesn’t have a lot of meaningfulness for me anymore.
I’m with you: I’m putting my trust in Jesus, and doing my seeking and serving of Him among community with believers. As best as I can I try to trust much less in the writings of smart writer-believers, institutionalism, and Biblical interpretive tradition (at least avoiding loyalty to such just for the sake of being loyal).
The hardest part is actually making my faith a heart response more than a head response. Placing faith in God is the most important part of my “trust in action” paradigm, and, perhaps ironically, makes me feel much more human than when I was a self-described agnostic humanist.
LikeLike
As I understand it, religion consists of what, or who is sacred to us, that is, the central motivating factor in our lives. Perhaps Atheists and “Christians” are not that far apart in their religions here in America. It seems that comfort and safety are the central motivating factors in both camps. Americanism is the religion for both.
As for “tolerance,” to paraphrase Stanley Hauerwas, “This idea of tolerance requires that the one tolerating, assumes a superior position, a superior view of their opinion.”
Our Master, ( for those who claim to be Christians) had no idea of tolerance. He said, “love one another, even those you consider to be enemies, do good to those who harm youforgive them.” If we can’t obey that out of being motivated by a love for Jesus, then, we need to take another look at the central motivating factor(s) of our lives.
LikeLike
Non-religious is definitely not atheist. Good and important point. Lalli says “We’re nothing.” I’m nothing but trusting Jesus, so I’m close.
LikeLike
The ARIS study growth/decline data rates reported in USAToday aren’t particularly illuminating, and especially so due to the way segments of religious identification are lumped the way they are.
I find Pew Forum’s study data better illuminate what Tim Keller addresses in his book “Reason for God”: American believers (include believers of non-belief) are becoming more polarized and entrenched, less willing to engage in a reasonable dialog with other individuals of differing spiritual worldviews. Meanwhile while we believers (of all stripes) become individually more intolerant, rigid and ungracious, many are united in still valuing “spirituality,’ ‘God’ and “prayer’ while thumbing their nose to religious culturo-institutional allegiance. (Non-denom Christianity is one segment of Christianity growing well — though that is not necessarily a uniform sign of health.)
Young American belief labels often still divide along some traditionally predictable regional, socio-economic and education-level lines, yet they have surprisingly greater unity of trends in choosing belief orientation along intentional, consensual, and substantive measures. In other words, young believers (including of ‘non-belief’) are quite consistently postmodern, fancying that they came to their belief position with more authenticity, intentionality, ‘content-rich’ substantiality, and objectivity than did their parents. (This is both truthful and alluringly self-delusional.)
Either way, I think is important to deliberately avoid equating “non-religious” with atheism. While the “non-religious” category growth rate is significant, only about a quarter self identify as atheist. From my personal involvement as a local officer of Mensa, where we have a disproportionally high ratio of non-religious to religious, I have found among those atheists, very few are militant. And of those who are more strongly convicted, I find they are more aggressively anti-corporate toward religion, but can still be considerably fair-minded toward individual belief. Still, there certainly are other atheists as ungracious as Hitchens and Dawkins. (We can say the same about Christians.)
I agree that there needs to be more intentional coexistence and of not trying to sell the merits of a given position by demonizing, misrepresenting, or constructing a straw man for an opposing position. There is, sadly, a common unquestioned willingness of many on all sides of belief conviction to choose to not see that there are very honest, reasonable and healthy positions of unbelief and doubt as there is for belief and faith.
LikeLike
I’m not a vegetarian, but I’m pretty sure that I morally should be. I expect that (barring catastrophe) in a hundred years everyone will be a vegetarian. This particular moral progress surely doesn’t come from religion. — Allan Crossman
In the West, Vegetarianism got this aura of Sign of Spiritual Evolution sometime in the 19th Century. I remember the documentary Telegrams from the Dead (covering the 19th Century Spiritualist Movement) mentioning that Spiritualists were recommending vegetarian meals before a seance.
And Seventh-Day Adventists (no relation to Spiritualists, but originating in the same “burned-over district” around the same time) also had some sort of advocacy for vegetarianism. I remember an SDA Eschatology book I read as a kid (titled What Jesus Said), and in the middle of the SDA end-of-the-world choreography was this aside against “flesh foods”.
And “Scientific Romances” (the Victorian predecessor of Science Fiction) whose future Utopias were often Vegetarian. (A lot of which also included Free Love and Spiritualism.)
I wonder if this is some latter-day echo of Gnosticism, where in order to be “pneumatic” (the highest state of Gnostic spirituality) you had to abstain from almost all foods, eating only those which were “pneumatic” enough to be translucent.
LikeLike
Last one before I’m done here: the inaugurating the story of the Jewish people as a whole and the end of the “mythological” phase of the Bible begins with.. wait for it.. the giving of the Law to Moses, and the Deuteronomic codes that followed. It would seem that, according to Jews and Christians at least, the essence of our relationship with God (if He exists) is based in what He wants us to do and not do. Which means raping and pillaging are existentially wrong because a particular God exists and it matters particularly what He thinks we should do, and thus forces the ramification of morality from inveterate selfishness. Or so I think; but hey, if I’m wrong, at least I’m not robbing you.
LikeLike
“But the fact remains that the presence or absence of God cannot make an act right or wrong.”
Actually, it seems to me that in the absence of God, nothing is wrong. Everything’s equivocal enough for jazz: pleasant or unpleasant, adventitious or ungainful. Being a manipulative, contentious jerk is an effective way to go through life, but it’s not suited for the half-assed or the faint-hearted; invariably, people rise to respect and authority by demonstrating that, even in a society with ‘rules’ against it. Without a tradition of worrying about gods to hint to us otherwise, the sober observation that life is a game and there are winners and losers seems pretty clear-cut to me.
LikeLike
J, other than a couple of “yeah-huh”‘s, I don’t have a response to you, but maybe there’s no point in crapping up a decent thread with this debate anyways.
“Actually, as has been shown with the training of soldiers in any culture, it’s actually very, very difficult to convince one human being to kill another. The average human being needs to be “hardened†to the idea of killing another–particularly doing so on command.”
Our prisons is full of people who needed training to become killers..
And as for the ‘Christians’ who sacked Rome at the end of her long slide into corruption? Well, that’s the kind of ‘Christian’ you get for the price of a universal, tribe-wide baptism – those German hordes weren’t LUTHERANS, man. What kind of point were you meaning to make?
LikeLike
“Actually, as has been shown with the training of soldiers in any culture, it’s actually very, very difficult to convince one human being to kill another.”
J: I suspect that’s more true of humans from modern nations than humans in their “natural state”. I recall seeing some statistic that deaths by war or violence in some hunter-gather societies are something like 25%…
LikeLike
“Allan, you do realize that raping and pillaging is only wrong if people have rights – and rights are a concept derived from recognizing a common authority, and that human rights as a philosophical tradition came about as an anthropological reflection on the idea of a single, powerful, sovereign God – right?”
I wouldn’t care to speculate how humans have actually come to have the various moral concepts that they have. But the fact remains that the presence or absence of God cannot make an act right or wrong.
Rape and pillage aren’t wrong because God forbids them. God, if he exists, forbids them because they are wrong.
“You might be surprised to learn just how heroic and laudable the most successful rapists and pillagers among barbarians were considered by their people”
I am aware. I have read Numbers 31. (Cheap shot, maybe, but it’s an appalling passage – and one which illustrates your point.)
LikeLike
*Allan, you do realize that raping and pillaging is only wrong if people have rights*
Not true.
*- and rights are a concept derived from recognizing a common authority*
Not true.
*and that human rights as a philosophical tradition came about as an anthropological reflection on the idea of a single, powerful, sovereign God – right?*
Wrong.
*As a matter of fact, ethical reflection has given us a lot that human nature didn’t supply us with -*
Actually, as has been shown with the training of soldiers in any culture, it’s actually very, very difficult to convince one human being to kill another. The average human being needs to be “hardened” to the idea of killing another–particularly doing so on command.
*many are concerned, with some precedent, that the decay of religious belief will result in a reversal of our best ethics.*
No it won’t.
*You mentioned Rome and the barbarians; after the Empire fell along went its regulated and more philosophical cults, and the tribal superstitions reasserted themselves.*
Except Rome didn’t fall to pagans: It fell to Christians.
LikeLike
Allan, see Jainism. Also, Ebionism. The extension of humane treatment to animals isn’t a new innovation, just like opposing torture isn’t a new idea – but both share in their reasoning an ontological assumption derived from religious reasoning, and neither argument doesn’t really achieve durable satisfaction without metaphysical support. Historically, nobody has managed to convince anybody for very long that anything should be considered an inviolable good without the assent of religion; and if you’re inclined to relativism, there’s really no such thing as ‘moral progress’ to begin with…
LikeLike
To be honest, that reply of mine above didn’t really respond to the point AICitN was making. Upon a more careful reading, s/he was saying that I only feel this way because of my Christian heritage.
I’ll accept that my view on ethics is profoundly influenced by my society. But I don’t believe that religion was required for an ethical society to develop.
And we continue to make moral progress without religious backing. Example: meat eating. I’m not a vegetarian, but I’m pretty sure that I morally should be. I expect that (barring catastrophe) in a hundred years everyone will be a vegetarian. This particular moral progress surely doesn’t come from religion.
LikeLike
“Sometimes I start to feel bitter when I remember the fear and guilt that was grinded into me when I was a young Catholic.”
I’m sorry you had this experience, Andy.
As a cradle Catholic who did time in Parochial schools, I can’t say as I know what you mean firsthand though – I never felt particularly fearful or guilty or grinded into. Different strokes for different folks, I guess?
Good luck though.
LikeLike
“We all know those things are wrong, whether God exists or not. Indeed, I can’t see any way that the existance or non-existance of God could make a difference to the wrongness of “raping and pillaging†as you put it.”
Allan, you do realize that raping and pillaging is only wrong if people have rights – and rights are a concept derived from recognizing a common authority, and that human rights as a philosophical tradition came about as an anthropological reflection on the idea of a single, powerful, sovereign God – right?
You might be surprised to learn just how heroic and laudable the most successful rapists and pillagers among barbarians were considered by their people – and even the renown and even honor that pirates, murderers, and brigands of all sorts could earn internationally as a result of their transgressing acts.
As a matter of fact, ethical reflection has given us a lot that human nature didn’t supply us with – many are concerned, with some precedent, that the decay of religious belief will result in a reversal of our best ethics. You mentioned Rome and the barbarians; after the Empire fell along went its regulated and more philosophical cults, and the tribal superstitions reasserted themselves. Much was lost.
LikeLike
is it a sin to coexist peacefully with an atheist neighbor?
LikeLike
Woops; did I say Acre, Lebanon? Two mistakes: Acre is in Israel and the Phoenician child graveyard was actually found outside Tyre, which IS in Lebanon.
LikeLike
AICitN: “First, I must ask, why is the modern Atheist a moral, productive member of American society and not a raping, pillaging pre-Christian barbarian? Where are they getting their sense of morals”
Surely it’s not just the fact that you believe in God that’s preventing you from doing those things, is it?
Surely if you decided one day that God doesn’t exist, you won’t go out and do those things, would you?
We all know those things are wrong, whether God exists or not. Indeed, I can’t see any way that the existance or non-existance of God could make a difference to the wrongness of “raping and pillaging” as you put it.
LikeLike
Oh and while I’m at it: I also know of many other Jews who’ve quite safely traveled to Saudi Arabia.
Sorry, but the world just is not the hyperthreatening
pit of terrorism, socialism and illicit sex that Fox News and Regnery Press has told you about.
LikeLike
Great post IM, as an Atheist who occasionally posts here, I know I can be fairly annoying and preachy sometimes. Which is pretty ironic when I realize how much I hate being preached too.
Sometimes I start to feel bitter when I remember the fear and guilt that was grinded into me when I was a young Catholic. I also get angry when I feel others are trying to push their moral agenda onto me through politics. Although I will continue to fight against that, there is no need for me to be standoffish in regards to people’s faiths. I think some bearded guy talked a lot about that 2000 years ago 🙂
I really just wished that religous folk understood that we are not without morals. Atheists have different reasons for basing their morals, but in my case I do believe in something greater then myself. I believe in six billion human beings, and if I behave amorally it only puts up walls between us.
As to how I, as an Atheist, view faith: it has been said many different ways, but it boils down to this. “We are all Atheists about most gods, I just take it one god further. When you see why you reject other gods, you can see why I reject yours” I do not mean that in an insulting way, but I just reject the idea of a personal all powerful being based on my observations .
PS. IM, you should check out Friendly Atheists page today, he has a video of a discussion (not a debate) between him and a Pastor. Interesting stuff, and definitely way more productive then an actual debate. http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/04/07/my-non-debate-with-a-christian-pastor-reloaded/
LikeLike
*…while no Jew can safely set foot inside Gaza or the West Bank or Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.*
*Raises hand*: I am a Jew who has more than safely set foot in Syria. It’s a beautiful country with many ancient historical sites and filled with welcoming, fair-minded people who’ve been very poorly served by their government(s).
LikeLike
*…and from there to the Phoenician sacrifice altars and from there to the Druidic sacrifice altars–that’s human sacrifice.*
I thought, archaeologically speaking, that the jury was still out about whether the Phoenicians did human sacrifice? Yes, a graveyard of hundreds of children’s bones was found near Acre, Lebanon–but it was determined that they’d been buried over several centuries and easily matched up with best-guess estimates of child mortality in the iron age. It could easily have been the practice to bury stillborn children all together in one particular place (i.e. as in *Grapes of Wrath* “An old man may be buried in a potter’s field, but a child who dies must have a good burial, for he has had nothing else of life.”)
Herodotus is our sole source about Phoenician “child-sacrifice” and, given that he probably never left his home town, we’re learning to trust him less and less as a knowledgeable authority. I.e. his description of supposed religious “orgies” of the Canaanites and the “temple prostitutes” of the Babylonians, have all been determined be little more than titillating fabrications.
LikeLike
“I’m somewhat curious, from my atheist friends out there, how the religious are viewed– i.e. are Christians and Muslims and Mormons and Wiccans and (your team here) all looked at kinda the same, or do you see the differences and nuances that the religous see? Or, put another way, do atheists paint with a broad brush the way that a lot of religious people do? I ask here because, in my little corner of America, actual atheists are more scarce than a healthy 401(k); I don’t think I know a single one that I could ask the question.â€
I can tell you what I thought (back then).
Of course I knew about the differences in belief. But I was arrogant. To my mind anyone who relied on faith was the same in that they were too weak or too ignorant to live without faith. Christian, Wicca, Muslim, all the same in that they all needed to believe something. For the most part I kept these thoughts to myself, but this was how I viewed faith of every flavor.
I suppose this is why the people who truly lived their faith made such an impression. Observing genuine faith challenged those assumptions.
LikeLike
“Jewish Israelis with a fanatically blind hatred for Palestinians and Muslims alike”
This is what’s called moral equivalence. Forget the fact that many Arabs and Muslims work, vote and live in peace inside Israel while no Jew can safely set foot inside Gaza or the West Bank or Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. All of which has zero to do with the topic except proving the point that Christians are pretty good at giving offense.
LikeLike
In reading through the rest of the comments, I can’t help but wonder how much of the compulsion towards aggressive evangelism, debate, and the culture war in general comes from a desire to silence/supress our own doubts on both sides of the discussion?
LikeLike
“I’m concerned that the atheist community will find the temptation for “cultural revenge to be strong. I won’t be surprised at all if we’re about to enter a period where Christians will find a vocal, powerful minority of empowered atheists prepared to harass and even persecute.”
I find this somewhat disturbing, this concern assumes some sort of cohesion in the atheist community beyond what actually exists. Individual atheists will do what individuals might, but the “herding cats” allegory is accurate as far as organizing atheists are concerned. People who don’t see a need to participate in a church community don’t tend to be joiners in other communities. Even my use of the word community is a misnomer, the only thing we share is a negative. We don’t believe in the existence of a deity or deities. The recent emergence of atheist voices was in response to the excesses of the religious fanaticism that we see every day in the United States. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and their followers created Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and theirs. If, or when, Christianity recedes from the foreground of American public thought, I think you’ll find that atheism as a movement will as well.
LikeLike
Phil
I live in a very secular state (California) and have my whole life. I’m an adult-convert to Christianity. My family growing up could be considered “cultural Christians” — if that, seeing we never stepped foot in a church, read a Bible, or really made any acknowledgements of faith.
My experience is that there is a lot of hostility from non-believers and even “cultural Christians” against those who have a deeper faith like myself. The hostility isn’t personal — but generalized. In fact, I usually get the “well not you, but those other Christians…” when someone accidentally makes a negative comment in front of me.
But it’s true that it goes both ways. I know people from church or are just a hostile towards the non-religious.
I think Michael is right. both feel attacked by the extremists on each side and then get defensive. If your images of the other side are Dawkins and Fred Phelps, then of course you’re going to be hostile.
LikeLike
If I might make a humble book recommendation, Charles Taylor’s “A Secular Age” is excellent. I think a lot of readers here would enjoy it. It analyzes the foundational elements of our society that make secularism a viable option for a considerable portion of the population. The most fascinating part is how so much of modern religion (the last 500 years) has been fuel for the movement towards secularity. Especially “traditional” Counter-Reformation Catholicism but also puritanism, evangelicalism, etc… It is very interesting to look at secularity as a positive, substantial thing, rather than mere irreligion.
LikeLike
From the tenor of many of the comments here, I think folks here might really enjoy and profit from the recently published “American Babylon: Notes of a Christian Exile,” the final book by Richard John Neuhaus. It grapples meaningfully (and charitably) with a lot of these same questions (including questions about atheism, citizenship, and the role of Christians in public life). I’m about halfway through, and it’s fantastic so far.
LikeLike
“There is an unavoidable flash point between Christians and atheists in that Christians have an inherent requirement to share their faith while atheists, even if not militant like Dawkins and Co, usually have an inherent resentment of being evangelized.â€
In my experience the most effective sharing of faith, the sharer never realized their faith had been shared.
Thinking back, the people who most profoundly witnessed their faith to me, not once preached it. They had no idea of their impact.
– A neighbor who brought over a meal for our family when I was too sick to cook.
– A father who reached out to comfort his son’s classmates after the death of his own son. This made a powerful impression because this man’s faith was genuine. Every action was a witness.
– A college student who befriended my husband when he moved across the county for grad school. He didn’t covert my husband but he certainly impacted his life, and his view of Christians.
– Christian kids that offered friendship to our son, even though he didn’t go to their church. Christian students can live their faith in every school in this country, every single day.
Really, it doesn’t have to be a flashpoint. It can be a spark that ignites something in the heart. But you may never know it.
LikeLike
@Sue Christianity is the ugliest religion on earth, with the ugliest people. We have smeared God’s name into the dirt throughout the world with our insistence on our own and our religion’s power and influence and the seats at the political tables. That quote from Bush made me want to hurl. Disgusting. Completely and utterly disgusting.
Well, I don’t know about that. Between the truly horrific elements of Western Christianity today, Islamic Fundamentalist militants and Jewish Israelis with a fanatically blind hatred for Palestinians and Muslims alike, Christianity certainly doesn’t hold a monopoly on ugliness (just as how I’d argue it doesn’t hold a monopoly on morality).
The issue is what are we going to do about it. Amongst all of the ugliness out there, *someone*’s got to take stand against it and start trying to unconditionally love people as Christ did. Why not us?
@Wolf This is increasingly the problem faced by Christians: those who disagree with us, while claiming to be tolerant because they are not trying to convert us to their view, are in reality intolerant because they do not want us to share our faith or voice our convictions.
I take serious exception to that because I think that’s a fair thing to feel. I feel that myself because I’ve been the target of aggressive evangelism from Calvinists and Mormons, and it sucks when I have to deal with people who only want to know me because they either want me to be another notch on their Bible or they have a bone to pick with Rome and get a kick out of demeaning someone else’s Christianity. When I’m walking down the street, travelling on a bus, or going to school or visit my local government representative I want to do so and not feel like I’m getting someone’s religious beliefs crammed down my throat.
And that’s what you call their “intolerance” is really all about – sorry to you or anyone else, but I firmly believe that Christians (or Muslims, etc.) do not have any kind of sacred right to get in the faces of other people and cram their religion down other people’s throats. *That* is what people don’t like. I know a lot of atheists, agnostics and other various non-Christians and they’re totally fine with me being a Christian. I know them well enough to understand that if I started trying to push Christianity on them, they’d get really upset, really quickly. That’s not “intolerance”, that’s feeling angry when you realize that someone doesn’t have any respect for you as a human being simply because you don’t read their version of the Bible, go to their church, or buy into their creeed.
With all due respect, I think that statement displays a sincere misunderstanding of what people on the “other side” see in us Christians. They see Christians as hypocritical people who are more interested in self-aggrandizing and morally getting on their high horse and preaching to puff up their egos than actually spreading a message of meaningfulness that is relevant to this modern life — and in my experience, more often than not that’s correct.
The problem isn’t “intolerance” from people outside Christianity – it’s a lot of things: it’s simple lack of respect for anyone outside of our little spiritual bubble…it’s a lack of willingness to earnestly put ourselves in their place, and a refusal to listen to what they have to say. Finally, it’s a refusal of our own, our of stubborn vanity to see that we’re not morally superior to anyone or morally blameless because we’re Christians.
LikeLike
Being the Body of Christ, we as followers of Jesus must have others see us acting out our words without telling others what to do.
Do you want others to change their minds because they were coerced and told what is right or wrong, or would you like someone to seek and find Christ for themselves because you showed them what love is all about.
His Holy Nation needs to wake up and love one another.
LikeLike
“When atheists wrote me during my fifteen minutes of fame last month, they were divided between reasonable people commending me and hate-filled scary people talking about herding all religious people into camps and “getting rid†of us.”
As an atheist, let me condemn any such idiocy emanating from my own side.
Having done that, let me remind you that there are a number of extremists on your own side who believe that it’s right and proper that we get sent to a torture and death camp. That camp they call “Hell”.
Will you distance yourself from them?
LikeLike
I know that wishes don’t carry much value . . . but some days, I wish there could be another Noah-event. I’m not talking about a real flood, with millions drowning etc. But a philosophical-religious purging, where the whole landscape would be reduced to a-religious agnostics. Then, when the dust clears, or the water is gone (depending on the metaphor) that Jesus (deprived from all His cultural baggage) is re-introduced in all his purity.
I agree, I would much rather talk to an atheist, introducing Jesus, (not a zealous atheist but an honest atheist) than someone who is religious.
LikeLike
As an a none, and daily reader of IM, a number of the comments give me hope for the future. It is nice to see such positive comments coming from a christian blog. I know great christains are out there and I am friends with a number of seminarians and ministers in my area. They are the ones that like to talk about religion and can hold a decent conversation about it.
One thing seems to be a misconception. Wolf Paul wrote:
“Increasingly non-religious folk will consider that harrassment and a violation of their right to avoid public demonstrations of religion for their children.”
I do not know of any non-religious person that thinks they have a right to avoid religious demonstrations done by private people or groups. We may not take them seriously or snicker or ask them to leave us alone. What we do have issue with is when the instruments of the state are used to do it or actively support it. I think christians(not all)have become used to a level of privilelge and deferance in society, and when that is taken away it is thought to be persecuted. To be treated the same in society as a Jew or Muslim or Scientologist or Amish or atheist is hard to adjust to if you are used to having everything your way.
LikeLike
*I wonder and doubt because currently Atheists (weak Atheists) do enjoy greater numbers in the scientific arena, and yet it is nearly impossible for Christians to be heard in that realm.*
Actually it’s really, really easy for Christians to be “heard” in the scientific “realm” . . . if what they want to talk about is actual science.
Blithe assertions that there’s a lump on a photo of Mt. Ararat that simply *must* be the remains of Noah’s Ark ain’t gonna cut it. Nor vague assertions of “irreducible complexity” in biological species (wouldn’t irreducible complexity mean, y’know, the end of ANY science?). Nor appeal to Arguments from Personal Incredulity.
Science *isn’t* about “giving” “both” “sides” equal “time”. The fact that you can imagine out a reason why evolution is wrong or neuroscience is bunk does not actually make science. You’re going to have to actually do the heavy lifting, learn differential equations, cell biology, quantitative chemistry, what-have-you.
Oh and then just having a PhD does not a scientist make: You have to then actually, y’know, *do science*. And then publish it. And writing a column in *First Things* doesn’t count, I’m afraid.
Anyway, the upshot: If Christians aren’t “heard” in science, it is not because they are Christians.
LikeLike
Christopher & Phil – part of the difference between Europe and the USA regarding arguments are the many wars that have been fought within the borders of Europe. After a while, one begins to get a little “gun-shy” (pun intended). In addition, we tend to forget that our ancestors came here because they could not compromise their beliefs. For both better and worse, we are descended from people who have trouble resolving an argument without taking the ball and leaving the game. Even here, if your argument got bad enough, you could just move west towards an area inhabited only by “savages,” or you could just have a Civil War. So, culturally, we do not have much experience in resolving arguments or finding middle ground.
Atone – “. . . the same voice that atheists enjoy now. . .” Actually, I hope that we enjoy a better voice than atheists have enjoyed recently. Much of the last 20 some years has been spent in a massive culture fight in which “atheists” have been regularly reviled as though they were the result of all the evil we see. Prior to that, in the 1950’s, the cry was about those “godless communists.” And, then, we blacklisted them all. So, uhm, I certainly hope that, should atheists ever become the majority, they treat us better than we treated them.
Wolf Paul – yes there are excesses, and I can cite some of them myself. But, see what I wrote to Atone, sometimes excesses are partially the result of the treatment that people have received. Some of the misbehavior of Israel with regard to Christian (and Muslim) Arabs is a carbon copy of treatment that they received. Remember that our founding fathers came from a variety of backgrounds, debated each other heartily, and yet were able to form “a more perfect union.” This is more than we can say out of the last 20 some years of cultural fighting in this country. In other words, there was actually more acceptance and tolerance for variety at the beginning than at many times in the recent past.
Sue – you have been reading too much university propaganda. Christianity as the ugliest religion???? Let me walk you over to the Middle East and review several hundred years of history with you. From there, let me take you to the Aztec and Inca sacrifice altars and from there to the Phoenician sacrifice altars and from there to the Druidic sacrifice altars–that’s human sacrifice. And, as for those peaceable atheists, let me point you to Mao, Marx, Lenin, the French revolution, etc. Christianity has had many ugly moments, but it is nowhere near worst. I will agree that we are quite Laodecian in the USA.
We are coming out of a period of time when the Religious Right attempted to define “true” Christianity with an abandon that matched anything the Roman Church did in her time. I am quite grateful that the Religious Right did not ever have the full power of the State on its side, as I fear that they would have succumbed to some of the same temptations to which other “Christian” groups succumbed when they had the power of the State to back them.
It is not, then, surprising that those on the receiving end of the worst tendencies of the Religious Right now are not only pushing back, but are even talking about trying to pass laws to make sure that the Religious Right can never gain control. In their zeal, those groups go way too far and have over-reacted. Frankly, some on the far left make me shudder equally with some on the far right. But, we will never achieve a working harmony (like our Founding Fathers did) unless we stop yelling at each other and find the areas of common ground on which we can agree.
That is politics. It is the messy business of finding out how diverse groups of people can live with each other with the minimum interference and the maximum civil rights. It is a business that never provides permanent solutions nor definitive answers. But, it is better than an absolute monarchy, a dictatorship, an oligarchy or some of the other systems that have been tried.
Ahh, a Democratic Republic, the messiest, but best, system under which to live the civil side of our lives.
LikeLike
I agree that dealing with atheists is easier than false (“cultural”) Christians.
However, the atheist movement is going to face some real crises.
The current movement is based on “Christian” principles (everyone getting along, equal rights, etc.)
But an atheist has no good reason to hold to these principles… What will things be like in several generations, when Christian principles are long forgotten from the public square? (“Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph”)
LikeLike
This is increasingly the problem faced by Christians: those who disagree with us, while claiming to be tolerant because they are not trying to convert us to their view, are in reality intolerant because they do not want us to share our faith or voice our convictions.
To be blunt, I find this the worst kind of fundamentalist narcissism. Yes, you are so victimized because people take umbrage at your harassment. The obvious solution is to voluntarily cease and desist when your efforts at evangelism meet with a “No, thank you” so that the object of your evangelism doesn’t have to get to “go to hell.”
LikeLike
All Christians must reflect the new life received through Jesus Christ. However, in being salt and light, we are going to annoy people in general and athesists in particular. We have absolute values and those values do create certain social norms. Overall, a society based on the life of Jesus Christ is a good thing. In fact, the greatest societies ever created have Christian values at the center of their existence.
LikeLike
“If you are a Christian, and you raise your kids to believe that there is salvation only in the name of Jesus, and that we have a duty to share that Good News with the people around us, chances are that sooner or later your daughter or son will begin to share with his or here class mates.”
Children can be very cruel. My daughter gets called a “bad Christian” by one of her classmates because she’s a Methodist and they’ve “changed the Bible.”
Ironically, one of the reasons we started attending church was because you cannot live in this Southern state without some kind of church affiliation. One of the first questions asked when you first meet people is “What church do you go to?”
I cannot imagine raising an atheist child in this environment. It would be cruel; you’d either have to leave or look at it as a learning opportunity to toughen them up.
LikeLike
My husband and I are Christians and we have raised our children to share their faith when an opportunity arises. However, we have also taught them to respect others and others’ boundaries and that to “shove” their beliefs on others is disrespectful and unproductive. What is the famous quote? “No one ever got saved because they lost an argument”?
Real Kingdom results, from my own observation and experience, occur much more often when we just befriend people because we care about people as God has called us to do so. Making people “salvation projects” is demeaning to them and makes them less likely to embrace Jesus, not more likely. When we truly love and accept people, are prepared to give gentle answers when asked and take gentle advantage of opportunities as they occur, people will see the love of God within us, and THAT is what makes Jesus attractive and intriguing to them.
LikeLike
The larger question is, can a country whose ideals and fundamental documents, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, were conceptualized and written almost exclusively by theists , conventional and Deists, continue to exist with a majority of Atheists. Will the basic principle of our liberty, that God grants rights, be respected? How could it?
The churches have failed to reach others, they have failed to teach their own. Few atheists I have known or read developed in a vacuum. Most were hurt by believers, parents, strangers, and became atheists due to meanness, stupidity of others, or a combination of both. On the Imonk 5 ideas:
Will I be called an extremist because I love the atheists and wish to ,in love, debate them in an effort to save them from Hell? Since God is my all in all I have nothing else to offer and little in common.
When we feed the homeless we bring a good meal and the Good News, as many of them need a Savior and a Guide to help them make better life decisions.
I will participate in an Atheist gathering, I did they call it a secular University, and will bet you your last Little Debbie that the name calling will begin early, and not by me. Been there. Take a philosophy or religion class at the nearest non-Christian school and get back to me on that one. Do not expect Atheists to act like Jesus. That is our fault, we never modeled the behavior for them to emulate. That is the problem.
LikeLike
I know a lot of us would like to see our religion not being shared by part-timers, unrepentant hypocrites, etc., but I think the end of the domination of the Christian idiom in America is going to make things hard on us. Far from making us seem more Christian, I think we’ll look and feel more lost than ever, and I don’t welcome that.
When society discourages religious expression, it’s harder for everyday people to find a context for their religious beliefs. It’s difficult to participate AS a Christian when everybody has already agreed that your ethics are out of touch and have forced you to admit that your religion is merely “personal” – all the worse if they only remember your religion as a guilt circus.
When even Christians today concede that they are repressed and often hung up on nonsense, I think we can assume that a great decline of our numbers will be hastened by the public humiliation of our faith – good people will leave because they won’t be able to make sense of their spirituality without the cultural incubation that helped them name their faith as Christian. Already it seems many Christians don’t know how to answer the question, “why be Christian?” without mumbling something about their personal lives or some ministry program they like..
Without help from society, it’s hard to make your beliefs matter, even to yourself.
LikeLike
Let me toss out some strange, fringe, probably heretical musings, and believe it or not, I’m going to incorporate Francis Schaeffer :-).
First, I must ask, why is the modern Atheist a moral, productive member of American society and not a raping, pillaging pre-Christian barbarian? Where are they getting their sense of morals. As Schaeffer would say, let’s tear the roof off of their ideology. Others could disagree, but I would say that they are still running on the fumes of their Judeo/Christian heritage. Warped and dying though it may be, as Americans or even Europeans, they have still grown up in a Judeo/Christian paradigm (by extension, one could even argue that Islam, as on of the three great monotheistic religions, provides a certain moral framework).
Now, here’s where I get heretical, and I’m totally going out on a limb and speculating here. But, if we step for a moment outside of the paradigm of individual salvation and look at the greater narrative of God’s redemption of the whole cosmos, I have to sometimes wonder who the real Christians are. “Christian” technically means Christ-like. I have always pondered why many non-Christians I know behave more like the Christ described in the Gospels than many of the “Christians” I know. If Christianity means simply agreeing on a philosophical level to a set of propositions, then it’s easy to distinguish who the Christians are. However, if it means “follow me” or “if you love me, you will obey my commandments,” well…
Now, do I think a moral Atheist is moral because of something intrinsically moral within their nature? By no means. We are all fallen and corrupt. However, I also believe that all good and perfect gifts come from above. Could, perhaps, the Spirit be at work even within some who technically reject the outer trappings or Christendom but, if even unconsciously, accept the Lordship of Christ in their lives? Now, we can stick such thoughts into tiny little Enlightenment boxes with titles like “common grace,” “special revelation,” “general revelation,” and other such terms which never actually appear in the Bible, but…
However, how long will even such a dream last? Sooner or later, if the Bible is not being taught and the Triune God is not being worshiped, those fumes may die out for America and Europe, although I have hope for the Global South. Individual salvation aside, the world needs the Royal Priesthood spreading the Spirit throughout the whole world. Of course, being somewhat Post-Mil, I try to hope such declines are temporary setbacks and still dream of the day when God’s glory will fill the whole earth.
LikeLike
Seems to me that part of the problem on both sides lies in our insistence on labeling groups of people. Jesus didn’t come to save Jews or Samaritans or Romans, He came to save individuals: Paul, Cornelius, and Dorcas. We should not be evangelizing atheists, homosexuals, agnostics, or addicts; we should be living our faith and building relationships with Mark, Judy, Amber, etc. Christianity started getting off track when it went corporate, when it became an organization, rather than a living body existing in relationship.
LikeLike
I think that the source of tension is the use of government power. Believers feel like the courts treat non-belief or secular humanism is treated like an established church. Non-believers feel the same way about school curriculum battles.
LikeLike
AL Mohler is probably agreed with and disagreed with by by the readers here but he does have keen insight on the decline of Christianity in America. He reciently wrote an interesting comment at http://www.albertmohler.com. on the Newsweek article – The End of Christian America. Worth a read.
LikeLike
I am reminded of these simple words of Reuel Howe in his book The Miracle of Dialogue – ‘Communication means life or death to persons.’ This quote might hit a little too close to home in the usual saga between Christians and the non-religious.
Dialogue is so important. In the past, and maybe even today, that word (dialogue) can be scary for evangelicals. Some have tended to think that those who want to undertake such a practice would be giving in and turning from our faith. But I really believe Jesus took time to listen to others. Even God takes time to listen to our arrogant rants, and even with compassion. Even some atheists take time to listen to our rants, showing a little more of Jesus than we do at times.
So, I’m up for listening and dialoguing. And, by this, I think we might have a better opportunity and drawing people in to the heart of God.
LikeLike
Sue’s remark:
The sooner cultural Christianity dies a quick death, the sooner there will be greater peace.
I’m not so sure this is in the cards. “Cultural” christianity, as Michael can attest, is a lot bigger than the American Evangelical ghetto. Witness for example the Syriac and Coptic churches, the multiple millions of traditional Catholics around the world, the iconic (ahem) Protestant/Catholic camps in northern Ireland, etc. etc… Cultural Christianity has been around in many forms for a couple of millenia now, and won’t be dying off anytime soon (more’s the pity). But if the hope is for peace in this framework, then we’d best get used to conflict.
I’m somewhat curious, from my athiest friends out there, how the religious are viewed– i.e. are Christians and Muslims and Mormons and Wiccans and (your team here) all looked at kinda the same, or do you see the differences and nuances that the religous see? Or, put another way, do athiests paint with a broad brush the way that a lot of religious people do? I ask here because, in my little corner of America, actual athiests are more scarce than a healthy 401(k); I don’t think I know a single one that I could ask the question.
LikeLike
I’ve always lived in fairly secular nations (New Zealand and Britain). More than half of my friends have ‘no religion’. Most of the people I work with or meet when I’m out are non-religious and/or atheist. The same cross section of ‘types’ exists within these groups as any other. My life is neither hard nor easy for it. It’s really no big deal at all. We’re all people.
The USA must be a very different place indeed if co-existence is an “issue” there.
LikeLike
‘Look at America in 2050 if that growth rate continues at even half that speed: a third of the country will be “godless.‒
Such projections are extremely hazardous. Let me share with you another statistic-oid: 21 percent of self-declared U.S. atheists profess a belief in God, and 6 percent believe in a personal God.
http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2008/06/pew-forum-21-percent-of-atheists.html
What this says to me is that people’s beliefs are a whole lot mushier than the hard-and-fast categories that pollsters prefer. In fact, I suspect that a certain percentage of respondents will answer “yes” to any question that is asked.
The word “atheist” scares a lot of people who are not otherwise religious, who might prefer “secular” or “spiritual not religious” or something like that. Of course there are social pressures involved, but I think it is more than that. As an illustration, I know some Chinese people who say they don’t belong to any religion, but sort of believe in ghosts (or at least, don’t NOT believe). How many other “niche atheisms” are there? I doubt they’re going to go after Christians with pitchforks.
Also, atheism to some degree probably falls into a life-cycle pattern, with a lot of teenagers and college students becoming atheists, only to moderate their views later (especially when they have kids). Not that this has anything to do with who’s right.
LikeLike
Part of the problem may be that Americans, in general, seem to have a hard time deeply disagreeing with each other without actually *treating* each other *badly.*
I know this is a huge generalization, but I have heard descriptions of life in Europe, where friends have very passionate philosophical or theological debates, but they come away from the debates *still being friends.* Do we know how to do that very well in America? I’m not sure that we do (again, speaking generally).
Of course, one problem may also be that quite a few committed Christians (including myself) simply don’t *have* many friends with whom they deeply disagree, in terms of worldviews. Such friendships can sometimes be tough to navigate, as Christians and non-Christians do disagree on some pretty fundamental levels.
However, one of the most precious friendships in my life is one that started in college and that has lasted over fourteen years. I am a Christian; currently, he is an agnostic who is considering atheism. Our friendship started out of a shared love for classical music and broadened to include serious discussions of films, literature, philosophy, politics… and yes, religion.
The religious discussions have, at times, gotten pretty fiery, and we have each gotten upset, occasionally, with the other. However, we deeply care about each other (and we do still have much in common), so the friendship continues. I long for more, similarly deep friendships with non-Christians.
LikeLike
Having viewed this issue from both sides of the fence –
I don’t think we get a realistic view of real world interactions between atheists and Christians based on Internet comments.
Raising a family in an atheist environment we didn’t really encounter much hostility. Our son played with children from both atheist and Christian families. We made no secret of our views but it really didn’t come up at cookouts or other gatherings. Actually, I have no idea about the religious views of most of the families back then.
Online, people can respond in complete anonymity. Many things are said that would never be said face to face while relaxing on a co-worker’s patio. And it is impossible to know the true agenda behind hateful comments made online. I’m not dismissing the real world problems, only suggesting that it’s not really comparable.
There are many who reject Christianity because of experiences in their church. Then there are the younger ones who grew up in homes without religion. They are further removed from the church and their opinions of Christianity are often formed by TV evangelists, movie/TV depictions of Christians and the scandals that make the evening news. I would hope that Christians take the opportunity of any interaction to show the loving face of Christianity. The atheist may have no interest in the church, but you never know maybe down the road that encounter will become a significant memory.
Here I am, living proof that yesterday’s agnostic can become today’s Christian with the biggest regret being that the journey took so long.
LikeLike
I’m just wondering that if an “empowered minority” did rise, or even more, would Atheists allow Christians the same voice that Atheist’s enjoy now? Not that we haven’t brought condemnation on ourselves over oodles and oodles of hypocrisy, but would an Atheist majority really allow Christians a voice in the public square and market place of ideas should the tables turn? I wonder and doubt because currently Atheists (weak Atheists) do enjoy greater numbers in the scientific arena, and yet it is nearly impossible for Christians to be heard in that realm. But I will affirm that Atheists are far easier to have a meaningful dialogue with than lukewarm Christians..it pains me to say that but experientially it’s all too often true.
Brad
LikeLike
iMonk,
I don’t know if you have seen it, but there is an article that might be the atheist equivalent of your “Decline of Evangelicalism” writings. Maybe there is some middle ground out there. I don’t know that I see it yet, but it is possible. This guy’s article could be the mirror of your call to meet in the middle here.
LikeLike
Among other things, Michael says,
I think it’s fair for non-religious to ask if their kids can be free of harassment in public schools? Can an atheist openly speak of atheism without being lynched in the press or Christian media? Can unbelievers pursue their rights to avoid public demonstrations of religion for their children and themselves?
and there I think lies the problem.
If you are a Christian, and you raise your kids to believe that there is salvation only in the name of Jesus, and that we have a duty to share that Good News with the people around us, chances are that sooner or later your daughter or son will begin to share with his or here class mates.
Increasingly non-religious folk will consider that harrassment and a violation of their right to avoid public demonstrations of religion for their children.
There is an unavoidable flash point between Christians and atheists in that Christians have an inherent requirement to share their faith while atheists, even if not militant like Dawkins and Co, usually have an inherent resentment of being evangelized.
This is increasingly the problem faced by Christians: those who disagree with us, while claiming to be tolerant because they are not trying to convert us to their view, are in reality intolerant because they do not want us to share our faith or voice our convictions.
Here are some other examples: people living in same-sex relationships don’t want us expressing our view that this is inappropriate; the Jewish community considers any hint that Jews need Jesus to be an expression of anti-semitism; and one could find further examples.
How do those who advocate “getting along” propose to deal with this without abandoning core features of our faith?
LikeLike
“I have had to stop reading my e-mails from people of faith who — oh, the irony — say things that are very hateful.”
That’s the sad thing right there. We hate in the name of Jesus. We are deceived into thinking that overly aggressive evangelism and criticism will bring them to Christ. As a result, we are better known for what we are against than what we are for; who we hate, rather than how we simply love people.
Michael, your #5, “Let’s treat one another like Jesus would. I think even atheists would sign on for that,†is foundational. Love God. Love people. Until we do those things systematically and instinctively, our name will be dragged in the mud and we will forever be known as hypocrites.
LikeLike
RWS2
“The demographic of people who have no religion or no belief in God, may also include Woody Allen type agnostics who do not have faith that there is no God and are intellectually honest enough to admit it. But it also includes what seems a large segment of the population that is focused almost exclusively on pop culture idolatry and the consumer exploitation that thrives around it. Some of these people not only are not atheists, they could not even define atheism and maybe couldn’t spell it.”
I was thinking the same thing. Here is the question though. Which demographic is going to be most receptive to the gospel? The atheist or the cultural agnostic?
LikeLike
The definitions of atheist and Christian are very narrow, especially in the media.
Christian has now become shorthand in the press for describing the religious branch of the Republican Party, as opposed to the business branch.
Atheist is shorthand for radical Darwinians, who want to pull down Christmas trees in public parks.
The demographic of people who have no religion or no belief in God, may also include Woody Allen type agnostics who do not have faith that there is no God and are intellectually honest enough to admit it. But it also includes what seems a large segment of the population that is focused almost exclusively on pop culture idolatry and the consumer exploitation that thrives around it. Some of these people not only are not atheists, they could not even define atheism and maybe couldn’t spell it.
It is this latter group that is potentially the most frightening because they don’t really believe in anything, including atheism or agnosticism, and have no idea why the don’t believe what they don’t believe and can be very easily manipulated by marketing and advertising. If the pop culture idolatry demographic reaches critical mass it could become very difficult to maintain any form of society as we have known it.
LikeLike
I welcome the death of the “civic religion”, and the assumption in America that all are Christians. Then maybe we can relate to the book of Acts and the Epistles.
I find it ironic that early Christians were called atheists in the Roman world because they did not worship the pantheon of pagan gods.
LikeLike
Of the many roommates I had during my college years, I count an atheist math major of Jewish extraction and a Mennonite electrical engineering major (!) from Philly among them. To this day, I’m still not sure which was the more exemplary young man this one-time evangelical was privileged to share a bit of his life with.
Would that all atheists aspire to the lifestyles espoused by my soft-spoken Jewish friend and by Ms. Lalli, and we Christians to that of my viola-playing Anabaptist roommate! Such is my hope and my prayer.
LikeLike
Can we get along with atheists?
There are reasonable individuals, Christian and otherwise, who can always get along. Unfortunately they to often seem to be the minority.
I like to think that the real majority just keeps to themselves and minds their own business. I mean for all the political division among us near half of the country agreed not to vote.
As far as things in common go, I wish we all could agree to disown people like Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins.
LikeLike
Have you ever heard say: “Jesus is not religion, it’s life (… relation or whatever the bumper sticker says)”?
How many of us “evangelical christians” slap this words in the face of (mostly) catholic people and then preach them: If you want to become a REAL CHRISTIAN, you have to become… EVANGELICAL!!!? (Obviously we don’t say it that way).
We rant about a void religious life and go trough the motions every single weekend without questioning our own religious practices, because we find them fulfilling. Then what’s the difference with other religious practices that other people find fulfilling for them?
I’m no theology scholar, but it seems to me that Hebrews speaks of Christ replacing the religious order of communion with God (trough Sacrifices – read tithes and offerings – Temple and Priests) for another more natural and familiar trough Christ. He replaced the religious agenda with the original idea of communion set on the Garden of Eden. (What was Adams religion? anyone?
Am I wrong here? or we’re missing the point? Jesus didn’t come to replace old religions with a brand new one. He came to (in his own words): Set the captives free!!! (religious ones included). That’s why I find pointless arguing of catholic vs. evangelicals, or them vs. us. Once you get rid of the religious agenda, you’re set free to be a true witness of the gospel.
Wanna be counter-cultural? Fall passionately in love with God, know him and Go and live a “normal” life (eg.: do whatever you do for a living) and while you’re at it, make disciples, cast out devils, heal the sick, plead the case of the widow and the poor; don’t worry about being saved by grace or by works, just be a christian-less all the add-ons. I dare you to see the counter-cultural effects of that.
I know maybe this post will be misunderstood, or even criticized. I know we can keep arguing forever about the relevance of our religious liturgy and practices. But lets face it… Our Religion and denominationalism is one of the main things the hinders the church to witness to people like Bill Maher, Muslims, far eastern religions, atheists, agnostics, etc. (John 17? anyone?).
Let me be clear on this, I’m no ecumenist… far from it! Forget all what you know and start over. Discover the bigger picture… It’s about God, not about our religions. Jesus slammed the religious establishment of his days; Paul was unwilling to allow the corinthians jump into the denominationalism bandwagon; and here we are almost 2000 years later trying to make sense of all the religion-mess that we are in.
LikeLike
Michael,
But if we all learn to get along what will we do with the culture war? I’m feeling lost already.
LikeLike
Amen, IM. A-bloody-men.
The sooner cultural Christianity dies a quick death, the sooner there will be greater peace. You know, I can understand if the atheist community felt the need for revenge. Christianity is the ugliest religion on earth, with the ugliest people. We have smeared God’s name into the dirt throughout the world with our insistence on our own and our religion’s power and influence and the seats at the political tables. That quote from Bush made me want to hurl. Disgusting. Completely and utterly disgusting.
I wouldn’t imagine an atheist revolt. Because atheists I find on the whole are generally reasonable people. It’s Christians who seem to me to be the most unreasonable. We seem to think we can see, when the longer it goes on the more patently and obviously apparent it is that we are more like that Laodicean church than any of the others. We refuse to see our own blindness and nakedness, like the Emperor and his new clothes. I hate it, I really and truly hate and despise Christianity for what it does to all of us. And I am a Christian.
Seriously, the sooner it dies the better. Then us Christians can begin having as much life and freedom as Christ came to bring.
LikeLike
I can understand how many people, believing and nonbelieving, feel about those who call themselves Christian but have little or no demonstrable knowledge of what they say they believe and no observable effect (fruit) of what they say they believe on their lives. Those “christians”, however, can rant on que about the hell-bound (fill in the blank). I am Christian and I don’t like them much myself. What we have in common with those who don’t believe and the skeptics is a common humanity. If we can work alongside them in a non-judgmental way then perhaps the strength of our beliefs will make a difference in our lives and theirs. I think it was St. Francis who said, “Preach the Gospel everyday and when necessary use words.”
LikeLike
>…mocking the sort of unconsidered Christians you talk about is unproductive.
Does “unconsidered” mean “inconsiderate?”
ms
LikeLike
It’s hard to foresee the future of atheism. Some on the Internet are waking up to the fact that atheism does not make you a better person, and mocking the sort of unconsidered Christians you talk about is unproductive. Will that population become a majority, or will people come to decide that Christianity needs to be fought against around the world? It’s entirely an open question right now.
LikeLike