I just read a great blogpost by Kate Fridkis about Atheists and Religious People and the supposed divide that exists between them. You can read the whole post here, or the excerpts are below. The overwhelming theme in the post is civility and the need for any "competing" groups to be willing to engage in civil dialogue. We could apply this to a lot of different groups, but applying it to Atheists and Religious People is some good food for thought. Enjoy:
Atheists don't all have clipped British accents and a staggering command of some seriously graceful logic. Some atheists are unremittingly normal. Some people don't bother to call themselves atheists, they just don't particularly care about the idea of God. The term "atheist" can't possibly live up to the hype (both smugly confident and malicious) surrounding it. Just as the term "religious" can't live up to its own hype. Maybe it's time to stop pretending there's really a vicious battle raging between these two supposedly cohesive groups.
It's foolish to imagine that atheists own concepts like pragmatism, intellectualism, and thoughtfulness. Or that religious people own concepts like spirituality, awe, inner peace, and even prayer. The debate about God, belief, and religion shouldn't be divided into believers and atheists. It should be divided into people who are willing to listen, and people who aren't.
It's often assumed by many that all the reasonable people are either in the atheist camp or the religious camp.
Like this: "If you're reasonable enough, then you don't need to rely on the idea of God to explain everything about the world to you."
Or: "If you're reasonable enough, then you realize that the mysteries of the universe are much too large to justify the categorical denial of the existence of God."
These arguments take us around and around and around (I could say it a few more times for emphasis) in circles. And ultimately, the only people who "win" are the ones who happen to be better at debating. Being good at debating is a particular skill that doesn't necessarily have much to do with objective facts or the truth (however we're defining that these days). My fiancé was the captain of his debate team in college. Getting in an argument with him is brutal for my self-esteem, even when I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.
As Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain at Harvard, will tell you, there are a lot of other positions between devout religious believer and atheist. As many people who don't define themselves as atheists but don't consider themselves religious will tell you, "I just don't talk about it." The right language hasn't been developed to accommodate these people's ontological orientations.
I'm tired of people being surprised when some atheists turn out to be jerks. Or turn out to be obviously unintelligent in some way. As though only smart people can choose not to believe in God. Because religion is perceived as inseparable from dogmatism, and dogmatism is obviously equated with thoughtlessness. So then, belief is easy, whereas doubt is much more complex and difficult. Simplifications of religiousness and atheism like this just don't cut it, though. There are too many ways to be religious and too many ways to be non-religious to allow for this sort of uneducated, underdeveloped assessment of either. Even belief and doubt aren't really opposites. . .
Maybe we need some new terms for the camps. How about this: "people who are willing to have a conversation," and "people who just want to hear themselves talk."
Atheists don't all have clipped British accents and a staggering command of some seriously graceful logic. Some atheists are unremittingly normal. Some people don't bother to call themselves atheists, they just don't particularly care about the idea of God. The term "atheist" can't possibly live up to the hype (both smugly confident and malicious) surrounding it. Just as the term "religious" can't live up to its own hype. Maybe it's time to stop pretending there's really a vicious battle raging between these two supposedly cohesive groups.
It's foolish to imagine that atheists own concepts like pragmatism, intellectualism, and thoughtfulness. Or that religious people own concepts like spirituality, awe, inner peace, and even prayer. The debate about God, belief, and religion shouldn't be divided into believers and atheists. It should be divided into people who are willing to listen, and people who aren't.
It's often assumed by many that all the reasonable people are either in the atheist camp or the religious camp.
Like this: "If you're reasonable enough, then you don't need to rely on the idea of God to explain everything about the world to you."
Or: "If you're reasonable enough, then you realize that the mysteries of the universe are much too large to justify the categorical denial of the existence of God."
These arguments take us around and around and around (I could say it a few more times for emphasis) in circles. And ultimately, the only people who "win" are the ones who happen to be better at debating. Being good at debating is a particular skill that doesn't necessarily have much to do with objective facts or the truth (however we're defining that these days). My fiancé was the captain of his debate team in college. Getting in an argument with him is brutal for my self-esteem, even when I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.
As Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain at Harvard, will tell you, there are a lot of other positions between devout religious believer and atheist. As many people who don't define themselves as atheists but don't consider themselves religious will tell you, "I just don't talk about it." The right language hasn't been developed to accommodate these people's ontological orientations.
I'm tired of people being surprised when some atheists turn out to be jerks. Or turn out to be obviously unintelligent in some way. As though only smart people can choose not to believe in God. Because religion is perceived as inseparable from dogmatism, and dogmatism is obviously equated with thoughtlessness. So then, belief is easy, whereas doubt is much more complex and difficult. Simplifications of religiousness and atheism like this just don't cut it, though. There are too many ways to be religious and too many ways to be non-religious to allow for this sort of uneducated, underdeveloped assessment of either. Even belief and doubt aren't really opposites. . .
Maybe we need some new terms for the camps. How about this: "people who are willing to have a conversation," and "people who just want to hear themselves talk."
1 comment:
I agree that civility in our relationships is a prime need today! Here is the civility in public discourse statement that I presented to our ministerial association -- which adopted it unanimously. It is borrowed, as noted, from the statement in Louisiana.
“CIVILITY IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE”
Adopted by unanimous vote at BaNAMA’s stated meeting of March 17, A.D. 2010
(BaNAMA - Barberton and Norton Area Ministerial Association)
As leaders of the faith community, we are deeply troubled by the lack of civility that we witness daily in public discourse. Since we regard all human beings as created in God's likeness, we regard an offense against our neighbor as an offense against God. Violence begets violence, in speech and in action.
In light of the intensifying debates on such issues as healthcare, immigration, economic and foreign policy, we pledge ourselves to civil discourse and invite all to commit to this pledge:
1. We will disagree without being disagreeable.
2. We will affirm the right of the other to differ, as we affirm ours.
3. We will debate the issues, not debase the individual who differs from us.
4. We will avoid listening to, encouraging, or endorsing those in public and in private life who demean the dignity of others by name-calling and labeling.
5. We will not acknowledge or forward electronic messages or videos designed to demonize or humiliate persons or groups.
6. We will be examples of civility to those who come into contact with us.
We call upon all people – at home, in faith communities, and especially at this time in governmental circles – to embrace this pledge by word and by deed.
This revised faith statement comes in its original form from the East Jefferson (New Orleans area) Interfaith Clergy Association.
Post a Comment