James Still

I published this on my blog today. They are just my thoughts. Controversial thoughts. Some atheists will think that they are heretical thoughts. And I welcome critical comments from all quarters to help me put them into greater context:

Religion won’t go away. Stalinism was an attempt to place a secular religion into the void of Lenin's atheistic state. We've seen how religion popped up right after the fall of totalitarianism and Communism in the former Soviet Union.

Perhaps there is another way: an attitude in which the atheist is one who embraces a motto such as "this is what we do" or "this is who we are." A new realization in which all human activities -- both sacred and secular -- are worthy of respect and, more importantly, acknowledged to be rich with meaning and something that adds value to the whole tapestry of human life. We will never be able to wipe away religious activities and I think it is foolish to try.

But many nonbelievers hold out hope for a religious-free future. With us still is Star Trek’s powerful metaphor in which everyone is a perfect humanist; yet, isn't the fascistic Federation, where everyone works in service of the state, a bit too creepy for comfort? Far from wishing to wipe the slate clean in some kind of psychic pogrom, the new atheist should embrace these various forms of ritual as something uniquely human. This is who we are. Disbelief in God does not mean that one must excise respect or even admiration for the rich tapestry of human life in all of its rituals, observances, and quirks. Far from desiring a soulless existence, atheists should embrace the "religious impulse" and see it for what it is: a very naturalistic human desire to find value and meaning in an uncaring universe.

These are the thoughts with which I've struggled lately. How can we reconcile atheism with the religious impulse? For as Kerr says, if religion were wiped out tomorrow the atheist must still confront the problem in which he must decide what to do with those feelings which gave rise to it in the first place.

Mageth

Perhaps there is another way: an attitude in which the atheist is one who embraces a motto such as "this is what we do" or "this is who we are." A new realization in which all human activities -- both sacred and secular -- are worthy of respect and, more importantly, acknowledged to be rich with meaning and something that adds value to the whole tapestry of human life.

Well said. My hope is that atheism will become worthy of respect. Unfortunately, many if not most religions will have to drastically change for this to come to pass. Is even this too much of a change to realistically expect?

Vorkosigan

I personally hold out the hope that religion will pass away. One need only look at Europe to realize the possibility. Living in America, one can forget how rational the rest of the world can be about religion. Move to Asia, where there is plenty of ritual empty of religion.

Vorkosigan

James Still

I too hold out hope that superstition will pass away. But I honestly can't tell you why. (I suspect that the world would be a better place but I can't really know that for sure.) But I think that if religion does go away it must be an entirely natural phenomenon. No matter how delicately it is attempted, I don't think a paradigm shift can ever be coerced. It must be adopted consciously through our own free will. That's the funny thing about the concept of God. As long as even one person holds onto the concept God lives. But as soon as the last person lets go of it God dies and is gone forever. (This gets at the real meaning of Nietzsche's misunderstood dictum.) I was always intrigued by Berkeley's idealism and how trees in the quad would disappear were it not for God's awareness of them. But perhaps he had it exactly backward. It is the concept of God which disappears when we are no longer aware of it!

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: James Still ]</p>

Bill

I've never looked at it quite that way, but I guess its not really a new thought. I recall similar statements about the "eternal life" of the Egyptian pharoahs being fulfulled so long as there was at least one human left to speak their name. Tutankhamen becomes far larger in death than he was in life due to the relative richness of his legacy left for us to discover.

I've long felt that religion filled a basic human need, and that the destructiveness of so-called "advanced" religions (including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) arises from the inherent divisiveness of an "us versus them" mentality which cannot be segregated from the devout themselves. A religion like Unitarian Universalism doesn't inspire the devoutness of (say) the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholics, however, are always at "war" against the non-Catholics of the world (at least, for some meaning of the word "war"), and this "us versus them" mentality would seem to be a key part of what sustains religious belief.

Perhaps this explains, at least in part, why such a large percentage of atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other unbelievers refuse to align themselves with any strong cause. This to me is the difference between the half-to-one percent of the US population which is clearly identifiable as "infidelic" and the ten-to-twenty percent of the US population which is at least apathetic about religion. The apathetics are the conscious objectors of religious warfare.

I remain convinced that some sort of religious structure is necessary for society. At least, this is true unless you do wish to have government take over all of the functions of both church and state, and in my humble opinion, that would be a really bad thing..... The question remains, though, about just how to go about motivating people towards self-sacrifice without the promise of an eternal reward. Phrases like "for the good of mankind" don't ring as strongly as "for the love of God!"

== Bill

Nikolai

Great points, but what function of the church would we miss? And the government probably wouldn't take over the function of the church, it will probably still be left to the individual to find his own "truth" And how can the government take over the state, as far as I know these two words are synonims.

Indifference

On the contrary. What makes a false book (or any other religion) more competant at forming rules, laws, and moral standards than an elected government?

What functions of church do you wish to retain? If it's charity you mean, atheists are not wiithout generosity.

I would sacrifice myself for the good of mankind long before a false God. I think with the discovery of atheism, one finds pride in being human and in humans in general. When we realize that there is no "dady" watching over us... with nothing supernatural to argue and war over... humans will discover a unity like never before.

boneyard bill

Indifference writes:

Somehow that isn't how things worked out in the Soviet Union or China or other atheist societies. As long as there are people in power, there will be other people who want the power. And yet a society cannot survive without leadership.

What atheists don't want to admit is that there is truth in relgious belief and religious practice. The real argument in the modern world is the argument over the nature of self. The modern, secular view believes in the autonomous self that can govern itself though reason and observation alone. Religion holds that the autonomous self is a myth and we realize our true nature in self surrender, not self-actualization. Consider Buddhism and Christianity. They are poles apart on almost everything except this view of the self and the ethics that follow from it. On those points they are very close together.

Indifference

You've given two examples where an atheist nation fails. But the you've misinterpreted which variable caused the failure. It wasn't the atheism, but rather the COMMUNISM. The strugle for power is trivial in a democratic nation because it is the people who, essentially, govern themselves... not one individual or a even a few. It is unfortunate that atheism is associated with those two failed communist nations.

boneyard bill

Indifference:

Would you care to give an example where an atheist nation has succeeded?