By
Greta Christina
Do atheists misunderstand religion? Or do believers still misunderstand atheists?
July 6, 2011 |
Do atheists really misunderstand religion?
I read the recent piece in Tikkun by Be Scofield, "5 Myths Atheists Believe about Religion" (reprinted on AlterNet as "5 Things Atheists Have Wrong About Religion"),
with a fair degree of both trepidation and curiosity. Trepidation...
because my experience has been that, when believers write about
atheists, they usually get it laughably and even insultingly wrong.
Curiosity... because there
are things the atheist community
sometimes gets wrong, about religion and other topics, and I thought I
might get some insight into stuff I might not have seen. I don't think
atheists are perfect -- believe me, I am well aware of how imperfect we
are -- and I'm willing and even eager to look at things we might be
missing.
But when I looked at these "myths" that atheists
supposedly hold about religion, I was more than a bit baffled. Because
none of these "myths" looked anything like myths to me. Instead, they
looked like... well, like differences of opinion. At best, they were
simply areas of disagreement: controversial topics, matters of
subjective opinion, semantic squabbles. At worst, they were red
herrings, bafflegab, even complete misrepresentations of atheists'
actual positions.
So let's look at these supposedly "ill-informed
beliefs about religion." And then let's look at the assumption of
religious privilege that underlies them... and at how religious
believers defend this privilege by taking on the mantle of oppression
and victimhood.
5. Liberal and Moderate Religion Justifies
Religious ExtremismThis is a perfect example of what I'm
talking about. This is not a "myth" atheists have about religion, or a
"mistake" we make about it. This is a topic on which believers and many
atheists disagree. And it's a topic on which Scofield seems to be
entirely missing the point.
The point is not that liberal and
moderate religion justifies religious extremism. The point is that
liberal and moderate religion justifies
religion. It justifies
the whole idea of religious faith: the idea that it's entirely
reasonable, and even virtuous, to believe in invisible supernatural
entities or forces for which there is no good evidence.
And atheists think that religion is a bad idea. At the very least, we think it's a
mistaken idea. Many of us even think it's an idea that, by its very nature,
does significantly more harm than good.
Now,
many atheists do think that liberal and moderate religion provides
intellectual cover for the more extreme varieties... again, because it
makes the whole idea of religion and religious faith seem reasonable and
legitimate. I happen to think that myself. But even these critics
aren't saying that Unitarianism is some sort of gateway drug to
fundamentalism. We aren't saying that the entire well of religion is
poisoned because of the hateful, extremist versions of it, and that
therefore liberals and moderates ought not to participate in it. We're
saying that the entire well of religion is poisoned
because it's wrong. And we're saying that liberal and moderate religion justifies that wrongness.
If
you disagree about whether religion is wrong... fine. We can have that
conversation. But don't say that the very idea of atheism -- namely,
that we don't think there's a god or a supernatural world -- is a "myth"
that atheists have about religion. It's ridiculous. And it trivializes
the actual myths that many people hold about other religions or the lack
thereof.
4. Religion Requires a Belief in a Supernatural GodSigh.
This one makes me want to facepalm my hand right through my skull.
Because
it's taking a fairly minor disagreement over semantics, and treating it
as a substantive difference over content, and indeed an accusation of
willful ignorance.
For the overwhelming majority of people who
use the word, "religion" means "belief in supernatural entities or
forces with some effect on the natural world." It most typically means
"belief in a god or gods"; even when it doesn't, it almost always means
"belief in the supernatural." Souls, angels, ghosts, Heaven, gods,
goddesses, reincarnation, karma, the spirit of the earth, a conscious
creative and guiding force in the universe, etc. -- for the overwhelming
majority of people who use the word, that's what "religion" means.
And when atheists criticize religion, that's what we're talking about.
Are
there secular Jews? Materialists who follow a Buddhist philosophy and
meditation practice? Non-believers who participate in the Unitarian
community? Yes. Of course. But -- and I cannot say this strongly enough
-- when atheists are talking about religion, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. Most of us don't care about it. Light a menorah; go to a
Unitarian picnic; meditate until your eyes roll back in your head. We
don't care. As long as you don't think there's any god, or any soul, or
any afterlife, or any sort of supernatural anything... we don't disagree
with you. And we couldn't care less. Some of us even rather like it. It's the "belief in the supernatural" part that we think is mistaken. It's the "belief in the supernatural" part that many of us think does harm.
In fact, many of us atheists
are
secular Jews and materialist Buddhists and non-believing Unitarians and
whatnot. Many secular Jews/ materialist Buddhists/ non-believing
Unitarians/etc. also identify as atheists. And many of them are just as
critical of the religious parts of religion -- i.e., the supernatural
belief parts -- as those of us who don't have any cultural or
philosophical affiliation with a religious tradition.
And yes,
atheists also understand that some "religious" people have re-defined
the word "God" into such vague, abstract terms that the guy becomes
unrecognizable by most people who believe in him. We understand that
some "religious" people have re-defined the word "God" as the creative
principle in life, or the power of love in the universe, or that which
by definition cannot be understood or defined, or something along those
lines. We often find it incredibly annoying: we're trying to have a
conversation about God as most people understand the concept, and the
modern theologians come along with their deepities
and vague abstractions, and totally confuse the issue. Plus, many of us
strongly suspect that these abstract definitions only apply when nobody is looking, and that a more supernatural definition comes into play when the atheists go away.
But again, when we're talking about religion and God,
that's not what we're talking about.
We don't care about your vague, convoluted, abstract deepities, except
insofar as they confuse the issue. If you don't believe in a
supernatural God... then we think you're an atheist. As Richard Dawkins said
to the queen of vague theology, Karen Armstrong, "Tell the congregation
of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to
fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be
right."
I suppose that, every time I critique religion, I could
instead type the entire phrase, "belief in supernatural entities or
forces with some effect on the natural world." You know why I don't?
Because I'm a good writer. I'm trying to be concise. And instead of
using a thirteen-word noun phrase, I'm using the word "religion," the
way that it's used and understood by the overwhelming majority of people
who use it.
So the next time you read an atheist critique of
religion, please just do a "search and replace" in your head. If you
insist on re-defining "religion" as "belief in supernatural entities or
forces with some effect on the natural world...
or some sort of
cultural/ philosophical affiliation with a tradition of said belief,
regardless of any actual belief"...then the next time you read an
atheist critique of religion, just zap out the second part of that
clause in your head. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking
about the first part.
And please stop acting as if a semantic
difference over a word whose definition is basically agreed on by almost
everybody somehow constitutes willful ignorance on the part of
atheists.
3. Religion Causes Bad BehaviorAnd yet
again: This is not a "myth" atheists have about religion. This is not a
"mistake" we're making about religion. This is a point of disagreement.
This is a topic on which many atheists disagree with believers.
And unless you're going to actually make a case for why your side is right, I am, respectfully, going to maintain my position.
It's certainly true that, when atheists critique religion, many of us often point to specific harms
that have been inspired by religion, or that have been rationalized by
it. But we don't end our analysis there. (Or at least, most of us
don't.) We understand that people do bad things inspired by all sorts of
ideas: political ideology, patriotism or other tribal loyalty,
protecting one's family, etc. We even understand that the harms done in
the name of religion have multiple causes, and that greed/ fear/ hunger
for power/ etc. are a big part of it. The point we're making isn't,
"People do bad things and justify them with religion." Or even, "People
do bad things directly inspired by religion."
The point is that
the very nature of religion itself -- the very nature of a belief in the
supernatural -- is, in and of itself, harmful, and is more likely to
both inspire and rationalize terrible harm than other kinds of ideas.
I don't have space here to make this argument in its most complete form. (I've made a more thorough argument elsewhere.)
So here's the quick- and- dirty two-minute version: Religion is
ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices,
intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that
happen after we die. It therefore has no reality check. And it is
therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self-
correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it
from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality... and
extreme, grotesque immorality.
Any other ideology or philosophy
or hypothesis about the world is eventually expected to pony up. It's
expected to prove itself true and/or useful, or else correct itself, or
else fall by the wayside. With religion, that is emphatically not the
case. Because religion is a belief in the invisible and unknowable --
and it's therefore never expected to prove that it's right, or even show
good evidence for why it's right -- its capacity to do harm can spin
into the stratosphere.
That's my argument. That's the argument made by many other atheists.
And if you're going to respond to this argument, you can't simply say, "Nuh uh."
You
can't just say, as Scofield does, that "the real source of bad
behavior... is human nature, not religion"... and leave it at that. If
you do -- as Scofield does -- then you're simply asserting the point
you're trying to prove. Scofield is saying here, "Many atheists say
religion causes bad behavior, but the real cause is human nature." And
he apparently expects us to reply, "Oh. Well, that settles it. Never
mind, then."
And we're not going to do it. Many atheists -- again, myself included -- have actually made a case
for why human nature alone is not responsible for the terrible harms
done by religion. We have actually made a case for why religion itself
bears at least part of the blame. And you don't get to say, "Many
atheists disagree with believers about this... therefore, these atheists
don't understand religion." A disagreement is not a myth. If you think
we're making a mistake here, you need to make a case for why we're
wrong.
2. Atheists are Anti-ReligiousI will
confess that I'm confused by this one. Scofield seems to be conflating
two different points into one: (a) religion doesn't have to mean belief
in God, or even belief in the supernatural; and (b) not believing in
religion doesn't necessarily mean being opposed to it.
So I'll take them one at a time.
(a): Asked and answered. See above, #4: Religion Requires a Belief in a Supernatural God.
(b)
Yes, we understand that. We understand that many atheists don't think
religion is inherently harmful. We understand that many atheist
activists choose to focus their activism in areas other than opposing
religion, such as creating a safe and supportive atheist community, or
fighting for separation of church and state. (In fact, most of the more
confrontational, anti-religion atheist activists I know of -- myself
included -- heartily support these efforts, and even engage in them
ourselves.) We understand that some atheists are involved in the
interfaith movement, and are willing and even eager to work with
religious believers and organizations on issues they have in common. We
even understand that some atheists and atheist activists see religion as
essentially neutral, or benign, or even a positive force.
I'm
not familiar with this purported "silent majority" of religion-loving
atheists Scofield is talking about... but atheists are well aware of
these differences within the atheist community. Look at the many debates
we have about confrontationalism versus diplomacy, fighting religion
directly versus creating a positive image of happy atheism, etc. We're
aware of these differences. We spend a great deal of time hashing them
out. A great, great deal of time. Perhaps rather more time than we
ought. We thank Scofield for his concern... but he's really not telling
us anything new.
Frankly, I'm a little puzzled as to why
"atheists are anti-religious" is even on this list. It's not even a myth
atheists supposedly have about religion. It's a myth we supposedly have
about other atheists. But in any case, it's pretty easy to dismiss.
It's simply not true.
1. All Religions are the Same and are 'Equally Crazy'Boy howdy, did Scofield get this one wrong.
I take this one a little personally, since it's a direct response to something I wrote on
AlterNet. And it's a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote. To the
point where I'm tempted to think it's deliberate. However, I'm going to
give Scofield the benefit of the doubt that he failed to give atheists.
I'm going to assume that this was not a case of willful, malicious
ignorance. And I'm going to spell out my point again, as plainly as I
possible can.
I did not say that all religions were equally
crazy, full stop, end of discussion. In fact, the entire point of this
piece was that the question of whether all religions are equally crazy
was a complicated one, without a single simple answer. The entire point
was that the answer to this question depended on how you defined the
word "crazy." On the one hand, all beliefs in the supernatural are
equally out of touch with reality, since the supernatural doesn't exist
and there's not a scrap of good evidence suggesting that it does... but
that, on the other hand, there really are significant differences
between different religions, and specifically that older religions have
had more time to smooth out the rougher, more out-of-touch-with-reality
edges of their doctrines, and have adjusted better to social norms (or
have shaped society to adjust to their own norms.)
Scofield made a
point of quoting me at length on the first point. And he made an equal
point of completely ignoring the second one.
So I will make this very, very clear, as clear as I possibly can:
Atheists are aware that different religions are different.And we still think they're all wrong.
There
are a handful of atheists who don't believe in gods, but who still
believe in some sort of supernatural something. But the overwhelming
majority of atheists don't believe in any sort of supernatural world. We
get that different religions are different -- but we still think
they're all wrong.
We get that some religions are more disconnected from reality than
others -- but we still think they're all disconnected from reality. We
get that some religions do more harm than others -- but many of us still
think they all do some amount of harm.
We're not as pissed off at, say, the United Church of Christ as we are
at, say, the Catholic Church -- but we still think they're worshipping
an invisible creator-god who turned himself into his own human son and
sacrificed himself to himself in order to forgive humanity for sins he
created us with the desire to commit. And we think that makes absolutely
no sense whatsoever.
(And yes, once again, when we say
"religion," most us mean "belief in the supernatural." I've already
responded to that point, and I fervently hope I never have to respond to
it again in my life. An almost certainly fruitless hope, I know.)
Again:
This is not a "myth" that many atheists have about religion. This is a
gross misrepresentation of a position that many atheists have about
religion -- a position that has serious validity. The straw man version
of this "myth" isn't a myth... because no atheist that I know of
actually holds it. And the actual version of this "myth" isn't a myth...
because it's not a misunderstanding of religion. It's a disagreement
about it. Again: It's absurd to say that the fundamental difference
between atheists and believers -- namely, whether there really is a god
or a supernatural world, or whether that idea is a total
misunderstanding of the nature of the universe based on an unfortunate
convergence of cognitive errors -- is a "myth" that atheists have about
religion. And saying it totally trivializes the actual myths that many
people hold about religious affiliations that are different from their
own.
Which brings me to my final point.
Poor, Poor Pitiful MeHere's
the thing. Bigoted myths about religions other than one's own are a
reality. Examples: All Mormons are secretly polygamists. All Muslims are
hateful extremists, seeking the violent overthrow of the Western world.
Jews grind up babies and put them into Passover matzohs. Etc.
And
there really are myths that some atheists have about religion and
religious believers. I don't see them expressed very often by the
thought-leaders in the movement, but I do see them pop up now and then
in forums and comment threads and so on. Examples: Believers are stupid.
Believers are sheep, incapable of thinking for themselves. Believers'
morality is immature, based not on a sense of empathy and justice, but
on fear of punishment and desire for reward. I've even seen atheists
refer to believers as "rednecks" and "hicks" in comment threads about
religion in the American South... and it's made me cringe. If Scofield
had been talking about any these, I would have been uncomfortable, I
would have been embarrassed, but I wouldn't have had a darned thing to
say about it. Other than, "Yup. You got us there. Atheists can be
jerks."
But when you take legitimate areas of dissent and disagreement that many atheists have with religion, and label them as "myths"?
You're trying to take on the mantle of oppression.
The
reality, in the United States and most of the rest of the world, is
that religion has a tremendously privileged status. Religion is deeply
embedded into our culture and our laws. So much so that it's often
invisible until it's pointed out. At which point -- as is so often the
case with privilege -- those whose privilege is being critiqued tend to
squawk loudly, and resist vehemently, and act as if a terrible injustice
is being committed.
And the reality, in the United States and most of the rest of the world, is that atheists are the targets of significant bigotry and discrimination. Most Americans wouldn't trust an atheist. Most Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist. Atheist veterans get booed when they march in a Memorial Day Parade. Atheist groups get targeted with hysterical venom when they play "Jingle Bells" in a Christmas parade. Atheist bus ads and billboards -- even the ones simply saying that atheists exist and are good people -- routinely get protested, vandalized, and even flatly rejected or removed. Atheist high schoolers trying to organize student groups routinely get stonewalled by school administrations. Atheist teenagers get threatened and ostracized by their communities and kicked out of their homes. Atheist soldiers -- in the U.S. armed forces -- get prayer ceremonies pressured on them, get atheist meetings and events broken up, get judged for their fitness as soldiers based on their "spiritual fitness"... and get harassed and even threatened with death when they complain about it. Atheists lose custody of their children,
explicitly because of their atheism. Bigoted myths about atheists
abound -- myths that we're amoral, selfish, hateful, despairing,
close-minded, nihilistic, arrogant, intolerant, forcing our lack of
belief on others, etc. -- and many of us experience real discrimination
as a result.
So it totally frosts my cookies when religious
believers take legitimate areas of dissent and disagreement that many
atheists have with religion... and equate them with bigoted myths. It is
a classic example of privileged people defending their privilege by
taking on the mantle of victimhood. It is a classic example of
privileged people acting as if resistance to their privilege somehow
constitutes misunderstanding, bigotry, and oppression.
Tikkun, the progressive Jewish magazine in which Scofield's "5 Myths" piece originally appeared, describes itself
as "dedicated to healing and transforming the world," as well as "build
bridges between religious and secular progressives by delivering a
forceful critique of all forms of exploitation, oppression, and
domination."