athiests missing the point

[lauradi7dw]

There are a number of kindly proselytizing athiests like Julia Sweeney and Sam Harris who seem to think that if diety-believers would only learn more about science and be made to notice the wildly conflicting stuff in the Bible, the belief would vanish. I'm probably over-simplifying. I've only read a little of Harris's work and seen the film of Sweeney's monologue "Letting go of God." It's hard to imagine that they don't personally know scientists and/or Biblical scholars who remain theists, but maybe they don't. They're nice about it (unlike Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or lots of Christian or other proselytizers), but I think they are missing the point. Most of the athiests I know are upfront about it but not pushy, and don't seem clueless. I read a post on LJ this morning (taking a theist POV) that I thought stated the author's side better than anything I'd seen:

>>People who haven't made the acquaintance of God and aren't in relationship with God, even by hearsay, tend to assume that the God of theists is a human construct created for instrumental purposes. They can get pretty cranky about it, too. God must, through the lenses in this box, be invented as a substitute for scientific explanation of natural phenomena. Or as a cheap balm for fears of death. Or as a cosmic gumball machine to vend Good Juju. Or as a source of a sense of justification, superiority, or self-satisfaction. Or, relatedly, to be appealed to to bash whomever the believer doesn't fancy.

For myself, I feel personal acquaintance with God. I feel that the God I'm acquainted with asks for God's friends to remake community. And so as a response to the God I know, I'm a part of communities-- Christian communities and wider communities-- working subversively to alter the styles, forms, and motives of community in this world.<<

http://amaebi.livejournal.com/678536.html?view=comments

Comments

[luckylefty.livejournal.com]

I'm a proselytizing atheist. What is the point you think I'm missing?

The person you quote thinks, like millions of others, that God has personally asked him to do certain things. Millions of people who think this must be wrong; they believe that God doesn't lie, but has told them contradictory things (that you are only saved if you believe in Jesus, or only if you believe that Mohammed is Allah's prophet, for example). While the things that he thinks God is telling him are less harmful than some of the other things people think God is telling them, it doesn't change the fact that he's wrong, and that acting on beliefs with no justification other than "God asked me personally to do this" is a dangerous thing to do.

The tactical question of how to persuade people is a different question from what is and isn't true. I think it's important to decide on our economic policies and elect our leaders based on our best attempt to make rational decisions, based on what the results of various policies would be. If I make rational arguments about economics, does that mean that as a proselytizing liberal, I'm "missing the point" that most people vote based on their emotions, and that emotional appeals will swing more votes than rational ones?

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

The point that I think is often missed is that there are a number of people (thousands? billions? I'm not good with numbers) who know perfectly well that the Bible was written by a disparate group of people over time who disagreed so much that nobody could possibly be writing the one truth, and yet still feel a personal relationship with some form of deity. Likewise, there are similar (vague but large) numbers of people who believe (or *are*) geologists, biologists, or other practitioners of the scientific method who are also theists. The idea that people made up gods before there were scientific explanations available for certain phenomena and now those gods must disappear because we have the knowledge seems common among atheist writers, and I think the idea misses some reasons that many believers believe.
Years ago on an x-files usenet group, someone posted the comment that when aliens actually do arrive on Earth, all religions will end. I replied that on the contrary, my expectation was that while some people would abandon religion, some people would be unaffected, some people would convert to the aliens' religion(s), and some of the aliens would convert to Earth religions. (I was presuming that both species could avoid trying to blow each other up for long enough to have discussions about religion). This seemed to startle some people, who apparently felt that that anyone technologically advanced enough for space travel would be religion-free.
I suspect I'm not the only person who feels personally connected to a divine being but doesn't really expect an afterlife (unless it turns out to be warm and glowing, the way people who've had an NDE describe it, but probably that's some sort of chemical reaction to the brain shutting down, rather than the beginning of eternal something or other). I think the assumption that people stick with religion because of fear of death is wrong in many cases.
You've been kind enough not to proselytize to me thus far (I knew about your atheism). Or did you just mean that you live your (lack of) faith, rather than actively trying to convince people?

[luckylefty.livejournal.com]

Religious people answer some questions using rational thought and empirical examination of the world around them, and other questions based on their delusion that God is telling them things (even if there is a God, most people who think God is telling them things must be deluded, since the things they think God is saying contradict each other). Different religious people draw the line between the two ways of thinking at different points, thereby doing differing amounts of harm.

The idea that atheists aren't aware of the many different reasons for religious belief isn't borne out by my readings. If you read Greta Christina's blog (most of it at http://gretachristina.typepad.com/, but newer posts at http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/), you can find discussions of at least a dozen reasons people have religious beliefs, and arguments against all of them. The first thing I found, for example, was this:

"Many of us keep saying this, and we’ll keep on saying it: The reasons people typically join religions have nothing to do with the theology. The reasons people typically join religions have everything to do with community. Are the people friendly? Are the services welcoming? Are there pleasant places to socialize, and good opportunities for doing it? Do they have activities I want to participate in? Do they offer support services I need? Is there good coffee? Is there child care?

And by the same token, the reasons people leave religion, and embrace atheism, often don’t have a lot to do with theology, either. Some of it does, obviously — most people leave religion when they decide that it isn’t, you know, true. But for a lot of people, a big part of their process of leaving religion is finding out that other atheists exist, and are good people with happy meaningful lives, and if they come out as atheists they won’t be alone. For a lot of people, all of this seems to be necessary before they can consider the possibility that their religion is bunk."

which also includes a statement I believe by someone who reads a lot of atheist writing that many other atheists are saying similar things.

When I say I'm a proselytizing atheist, I don't mean that I walk up to my religious friends or knock on doors of religious strangers and say "here's why you're wrong and should believe what I believe". That's both impolite and an ineffective means of proselytization. But it does mean, among other things, that when friends post unfair and inaccurate characterizations of atheist beliefs and writings, I answer them.

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

What I remember of GC's writing (I'll read more, at your suggestion)is her call for a truce about which side has done more evil things over time - Godwin's law comes into play sooner or later, because despite the "Kinder, kuche, kirche" slogan, there is a lot of evidence that Hitler himself was an atheist. On the other hand, one apparently can't get away from the Inquisition when talking about the evils of religion. As I recall, her point was that going in circles of that sort can't be productive.

[nosrednayduj]

Unitarians are the best of both worlds. Church without God! (And good childcare.)

We're hoping that by sending our kids to the UU church we'll be inoculating them against becoming born-again in the future. (And they mostly do have good things to say in the kids program.)