Next time you visit HuffPo to get your dose of important news like “Jon Gosselin’s Las Vegas Pool Party (PHOTOS)” and “Macaulay Culkin Is Prince Michael ‘Blanket’ Jackson’s Father,” make sure to stick around for some of their more intellectual fare, like “Yoga Chickie” Lauren Cahn’s “Why I Failed As an Atheist.”
It’s a good-sounding topic, to be sure, and as I read it I found myself hoping that the answer was going to be something along the lines of “my double-blind prayer study produced otherwise inexplicable results” or “all of my enemies were struck by lightning at the exact same time” or “I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of god’s existence, which this margin is too narrow to contain.”
But no, instead she fell prey to spurious “arguments” like “I find myself unable to purge my vocabulary of god-referencing idioms” and “I am a lightweight-enough thinker that my disbelief in god would count as hubris,” and “I don’t refuse to believe in space aliens, and how is this any different?”
Of course, she’s still stuck with her earlier conclusion that her theology doesn’t make any sense:
But having that “imaginary friend” is a comfort to me in my life. And I don’t presume to know anything more than that. Which is kind of the point, I think. Isn’t it?
Indeed, if you prioritize “comfort” and ignorance over inquiry and truth, you are likely to fail as an atheist. That is kind of the point.
All hail Mighty Atheismo!
Well, that sure made me laugh!
If nothing else, I am learning what a firey, evangelical bunch ya’all are over in Atheism-ville.
But in defense of my brethren in moronic tooth-fairy worship, let me please just say that for me, for many of us, having this “imaginary friend” is not an indictment of rational thinking. Rather, we compartmentalize it, along with wishing on stars and occasionally dropping in at the Tarot Card reader on West Fourth Street. I think that atheists put a lot of thought into what might otherwise be the mental equivalent of comfort food. And that’s fine. Just don’t make me eat your complex stew when I’m content and not hurting anyone eating my Chef Boyardee.
Lauren
Seems like you have a nice attitude about it Lauren, and I for one don’t have a major problem with people who compartmentalize it as long as they, you know, do a good job of compartmentalization. Which many people don’t. I also worry that moderate theism gives comfort and political cover for fundamentalism, but the world has so many complex problems that I’m not going to lose sleep over that particular aspect of it. Any given theist that a) doesn’t believe anything bigoted and hateful, and b) recognizes their belief is totally irrational (just as I know I am being totally irrational when I tell you with the utmost confidence that my son is the cutest and smartest baby on Earth, or at least in the top 50) — hey, that’s A-ok with me.
One thing I do want to comment on though… A friend of my wife’s, on the way to becoming a friend of mine, after finding out I was a strong atheist, corrected herself in front of me once from “Oh my God” to “Oh my gosh.” I didn’t realize why she did it until later, and then I wished I had said something. As an atheist, I probably care the *least* of anybody whether someone says “Oh my god!” I don’t try to purge it from my vocabulary — why would I? It’s just a dumb metaphorical idiom. No reason to get my panties all up in a bunch over it.
I do try to watch myself from saying “Thank God” in most situations, because I think it’s rather uncouth to thank one’s imaginary friend for something that a real person is responsible for, heh… But even then, I slip a lot. So what? It’s just an expression; most believers who use those phrases don’t even mean them literally.
As far as your brother being an “Extremist Atheist”, you have to put this in historical context. There are as many openly atheistic congresspeople as there are openly gay (1). Atheism is routinely associated with evil, atheists are called immoral bastards and blamed for Stalin and Hitler, and those of us who think other people would be happier if they shared our beliefs (you know, like nearly every single theist in the world…) are denounced as “fundamentalists” or “militants” — and all of this is done in the mainstream press, not in some conservative rag.
So of course we are a bit touchy about it. We live in a society that is trying to marginalize us, and an expected (and proper!) response to that is to be even more vocal.
So many possible things to reply to here, but I will start with this one: You say that “most theists” blah blah blah. That is unfair. Right? You don’t like when I attribute “blah blah blah” to all or most “atheists”. That is wrong, right?
Anything that is “fundamentalist” is bad, which is to say that anything that amounts to adherence without thought is dangerous.
Religious fundamentalists/extremists, like atheist fundamentalists/extremists are of the mindset that EVERYONE must believe what they believe in order for what they believe to work. Right? That is wrong. You can believe that in the absence of evidence to the contrary,science is unrelated to any deity; and I can be open to the possibility of a deity having some role in science. And we can both be “right” until proven wrong, and our opinions can co-exist peacefully. Things get violent when one side believes that the other side must be eliminated.
Hitler/Stalin/Insert Evil Person exist because of a need for belief. People are susceptible to evil leadership when they are desperate for an external compass. I fully admit that. That does not make a belief that science might coexist with god a problem for the world. Sam Harris writes that tolerance is a problem, but I refuse to believe that.
One more thing: it is a terrible and circular problem that the tenets of some religions include conversion and intolerance. I don’t know what to say about that other than religious freedom must have its limits, just like freedom of speech does not permit yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Where?! Seriously, quote me. I did not say anything of the kind. I offhandedly said that I thought that when most believers say things like “Oh my God her butt is so big” they do not literally mean “Hey Jesus, look at this girl’s ass!”, and I apologize if this generalization offends you. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe when theists hit their thumb with a hammer and say “Goddamn it!”, they are really asking that God descend from the sky and cast the hammer into the fires of hell. But I am going to go out on a limb and assert — even without statistical evidence! — that it is not the case.
I did say that “many” people are unable to compartmentalize well, but I did not say “most”, nor did I even say “many theists”. I think many nontheists also fail to compartmentalize well, confusing for example their political allegiances with reality. Compartmentalization is so important to being human, because NONE of us can say that 100% of our beliefs are perfectly rational. So it’s important to be aware of this and try to put aside our passions when tasked with making rational choices. This is very hard. For everyone, not just theists. I stand by this assertion.
At no point did I make a generalization about theists in particular, aside from the rather innocuous speculation that probably most idiomatic invocations of “God” are, well, uh, idiomatic. I really wish you had not implied I made generalizations that I didn’t. That makes you look pretty dishonest, and it poisons the well.
I don’t see where I contradicted this? The closest I came was that I said that I thought maybe “other people would be happier if they shared our beliefs”, and I probably should have qualified this by saying “many other people”. Probably not everyone would. But I think many would. While certainly religion appears to make many people happy, you don’t have to look far to find examples of people who are made absolutely miserable by religion. I think that getting irreligious ideas out in the public square, and letting people it’s okay to disbelieve, could be a liberating force for many people.
If you are really saying it’s “extremist” or “fundamentalist” to think that some other people might be happier if they shared some of your beliefs, then uh, okay, I plead guilty. But that’s crazy talk! If you don’t actually think that your beliefs might have some value for anyone other than yourself, why bother having any sort of conversation about it at all???
There’s a tremendous gap between “some people might be happier thinking a different way” vs. “one side must be eliminated.” I find it somewhat offensive that you have equivocated the two.
And this is where I am quite proud to say my opinion diverges from yours: On the implicit assumption of a need for unquestioned belief. I don’t see strong evidence of this. I see that it is very easy for people to fall into the trap of believing things that they don’t question. And maybe I am wrong, maybe someday psychology or biology will prove that people have a fundamental need to believe something unquestioningly.
But until that day comes, I am going to operate on the assumption that people are better than that. To say otherwise would be elitism. Until I am proven otherwise, I will live my life on the optimistic assumption that people do not need to be told comforting lies in order to make them functional citizens.
If that’s what choose to think of humanity, that people need to be lied to in order to be okay, well… that’s your business.
It very much depends on what you mean by tolerance. I am also uncomfortable with some of the things Sam Harris has said in this vein (ZOMG it turns out us “atheist fundamentalists” don’t actually all believe the same fundamental things!). But I think I mostly agree with the ideals that underlie his concept of “conversational intolerance”, if I understand his intentions… basically, I absolutely tolerate other ways of living, but I am not going to be afraid to call a belief bigoted or ignorant if that’s what it is.
Creationism, religious homophobia, female circumcision, subjugation of women via the burqah, opposing condoms in Africa… these things are WRONG and I will not apologize for saying so. I would assume you agree with me on this, given what I can gather of your politics! I suspect this is what Sam Harris means when he rails against “tolerance” — that we should not let our tolerance go so far that we fail to point out rituals and beliefs that are prima face despicable.
If he means something more than that, then of course I disagree. To the extent that it is possible, we should strive to co-exist with each other. To me, though, co-existence does not mean that beliefs are above criticism! Co-existence and tolerance should not be mistaken for utter acquiescence and a taboo against legitimate criticism.
[[Eh, I want to clarify something above, since you are apparently susceptible to imagining atheist strawmen... when I listed all of those horrible things three paragraphs above, I was not trying to paint a picture of theism. I realize "most theists" (Oh noes, the dreaded generalization!) don't believe anything like that, and I wasn't trying to imply they do. I wasn't even attacking religion per se in that paragraph -- all I was saying is that there are some religious practices that are clearly immoral/unethical, and that one should not be afraid to say so in the name of religious tolerance. So please don't say, "Waaa waaa, we don't all hate teh gays", because I know that, and I know the distinction is critically important. In fact, in the past I have blogged about just how important it is that some moderate Christian sects, for example, have found a convoluted interpretation of the Bible that allows them to be simultaneously Christian and gay-friendly. I frankly don't think that makes any sense (Leviticus is pretty unambiguous) but the practical issues are so damn important that I'm quite glad these folks are there anyway.]]
Did I hear you right? Did you just say that a religion which practices conversion is the legal equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater, and that such speech should be restricted?!? Wow, now I think maybe you are more antireligious than I am.
I don’t see the same “clear and present” danger from intolerant religions as I do with yelling fire. Of course, if a religious practice conflicts with negative law that exists for a secular purpose (e.g. if my religion says I should be able to kill people; or to take a more practical example, if my religion says I should refuse medical treatment for my child and allow them via neglect to die a painful and unnecessary death) then there is no reason an exemption should be granted for religious reasons. But that’s not a free speech issue, it’s a rule of law issue.
And anyway, trying to legislate against intolerant religions will just drive them underground and make them more virulent. The right response is condemnation — roundly expressed BOTH by nontheists and moderate theists alike.
In retrospect, I previously described a type of theist which I am perfectly comfortable with — one who does not confuse their religion with a rational epistemology, and one who does not believe anything hateful or intolerant. It seemed like you were that type of theist, and perhaps you do meet those two criteria. But now I would like to add a third qualifier: The “OK Theist” must also not have some weird irrational problem with nontheists, to the extent of building strawman arguments and putting words in their mouths. I didn’t make unfair generalizations about theists, I didn’t suggest intolerance, and I certainly didn’t suggest “elimination” of theists!… but now you are impugning me with all of those things. If that’s what theism does to a person, then I guess I made the right choice! :p
The craziest thing of all is that we don’t really disagree at all!!! Except in one respect, and if we didn’t talk about it out loud, we wouldn’t even know: I have an imaginary friend, and you don’t.
:p
Which I thought I said was okay…? I reiterate from my first reply:
My main objection was being denounced as an “extremist” or “fundamentalist” simply because I talk out loud about whether or not I believe in an imaginary friend. Last time I checked, you also asserted your right to talk out loud about imaginary friends.
I guess that makes you a “SBNR fundamentalist”, eh?
Do you see, Lauren, why some of us might be a little touchy now? If you talk about how you like to believe in an imaginary friend, it’s an interesting op-ed piece. If I talk about how I don’t believe in an imaginary friend, it’s extremism and all of a sudden you (who started the conversation) point out that if we didn’t talk out loud about it, then we wouldn’t have to disagree.
The implication here is that the only good atheist is a silent atheist. And this is coming from an extremely liberal person who even flirted with atheism herself! In that kind of climate, is it any wonder that some of us feel the need to vigorously assert ourselves into the public debate??
I really didn’t mean to imply that you should silence yourself. I was more implying that I might consider silencing MYself. Of course, I am hardly capable of that.
If I accused you of extremism, that was certainly inaccurate. If you want it to be. If you want to be extreme, great. I really don’t want to shut anyone up. I just find it really interesting that atheists are so vocal about NOT believing. I should just get used to it.
Are you going to tear me a new one for saying that you do “not believe”? I hope not.
Nope, I think that’s a reasonable description. However, I do want to comment on:
That’s kind of what I’ve been trying to explain, is why we feel the need to be so vocal about something that, as you correctly observe, one would think would not really be worth discussing. I also don’t collect stamps, but I don’t feel the need to go around talking about how my “hobby” is Not Collecting Stamps. So why do I feel the need to go around talking about my “religion” being atheism?
Allow me to quote from a blog post I previously wrote about the atheist bus ad controversy:
I inserted that asterisk there (not in the original) because I want to make it clear that I was referring about some theists, not “all” or “most”. But if you doubt there are a non-trivial number of theists who are trying to influence the political process to conform to their beliefs, I invite you to watch Fox News for a few minutes, or as many seconds as you can stand it
As many as 20% of the American population do not consider themselves religious. Out of this, probably only a fraction are atheists, but I do believe the percentage of strong atheists in the United States is probably greater than 1 in 535. And yet there has only been one openly atheist congressperson in US history. Atheists are the least trusted group in America, scaring people even more than Muslims, gays, immigrants, or any minority groups. While it is not so bad in NYS where I live, it is not hard to find stories of people in Texas, for example, who are afraid to have their atheism disclosed because they think it could lead to them getting fired from their job.
I could go on, but I think you get my point. “Atheist” is a bad word, an epithet, in much of the country, and in much of the world (parts of Western Europe excepted). Some of us believe that we can help change that by making people realize that, hey, us atheists are everywhere and we are harmless. I would not be the first to coin the phrase, “We’re here, we’re godless, get used to it!”
Does that help you understand why some of us are so vocal? In a perfect world, you’re absolutely right, a person’s personal delusions (or lack thereof) would be inconsequential — unless those delusions became harmful, in which case the person should seek psychiatric help. And in that perfect world, babbling on about one’s lack of delusions would be tedious and trite. But we don’t live in that world. We live in a world where lacking a few key delusions implicitly disqualifies you from high office. We live in a world where a few particular delusions are intricately tied to a warped political platform. We live in a world where deluded folks with magic underwear succeeded in dealing a huge blow to the progress of civil rights in the US. We live in a world where one particularly bizarre delusion keeps trying to insert itself into biology textbooks. We live in a world where people young girl’s clits are lopped off because of one delusion, while children are left to die of preventable diseases because of a different delusion.
When all of that is no longer an every day occurrence, and when I can say “I’m an atheist” without anyone batting an eyelash, then I’ll stop being vocal about my lack of belief.
http://nojesusnopeas.blogspot.com/2009/09/you-cant-escape-it.html