why do i bother
By diana on Jun 30, 2010 | In the atheist files
more from the atheist files
In The End of Faith, Sam Harris writes that most people cannot be argued out of faith because they were not argued into it in the first place, a truth I feel is so well stated that it deserves restating. So why do I bother arguing for atheism? Since I agree with Harris, it would seem that my actions contradict my stated beliefs. Why don't I just live and let live? Is there a point to my rants? And isn't there deep irony in the fact that an atheist (me) may spend more time thinking about religion than many theists?
Ha! Yes, it is ironic, but it's an irony I've come to accept. As a fundamentalist preacher's daughter, I have been steeped in religion since birth. To give you some idea of what I grew up with, the Church of Christ is a borderline cult. Your faith is the reason you live, period. No part of your life is exempt. I walked away from the faith when I left home at 18, but I didn't forget. When your every move and thought is dictated by your faith throughout your formative years, you don't just walk away and forget about it. It is a part of who you are, for better or for worse. It is said that fundamentalist theists, if they leave the faith, become fundamentalist atheists; there's a great deal of truth to this.
There was a time I'd have just said, "Why do I have to talk about this? I don't. I choose to. This is my little corner of the web, and I say whatever I feel like." This is brusque, but basically true. However, as an explanation, it's no better than what my father used to tell me as a child, when I asked "Why?" - Because I said so, that's why. It isn't the real reason. It leaves an explanation wanting.
So, in no particular order, here are some of the reasons I continue to talk about my atheism and the reasons for it.
Because I'm interested.
I wrote a blog post during the spring semester about a conversation I had with one of my professors; she didn't like my approach to the material. She felt it was less valid than hers. In exasperation, she said, concerning my thesis, "Who cares?" I do, of course.
Frankly, I do not care about most of the literary theory and criticism I read. I was not interested in most of the stuff she thought I should be interested in. The question cuts both ways. In the end, we write about what intrigues us, and in a perfect world, we only read what interests us. No one's interests should be dictated by whether someone else "cares."
I do place these posts under the category "the atheist files," and I think I make their content fairly clear with my choice of titles. If you do not wish to read them, you are welcome to skip them. I will not be offended.
Because faith hurts my family and family relations.
My father has told me how much I've hurt him over the years. He didn't say how, but I can guess. I hurt him when my mother cornered me about my leaving the faith and would not take any of my polite hints that I didn't want to talk about it, so I left. That is, I lived in Colorado and they in Texas; I cut my visit short because she refused to pay me basic respect.
I hurt my father, no doubt, by realizing that I do not believe as I was raised to and instead of being a hypocrite about it, I embraced it and followed my own path.
I hurt him - them - because I did not become the person they wanted, expected, and raised me to be. To wit: married to a nice Christian man and being a good mother to their grandchildren.
There's probably a lot more, but all of these "hurts" are provoked by my parents' Christian beliefs. I understand that most parents get upset when their children choose a different path than what they'd envisioned, but much of our inability to get along is based upon the requirement of their faith that they not leave me be.
Faith continues to be the underlying point of contention in almost all of our differences. So yeah...it's personal.
Because faith is and always has been an impediment to progress.
It is an excuse to stop thinking, to stop trying, and to relieve oneself of the burden of reason. Faith has a distinguished history of being the antithesis of science, but it's science (well, its offspring, technology) - not faith - which allows you to read this post now. Science brought us out of the stone age.
Because faith enables charlatans to influence others.
Once you have a group of people who will believe whatever you tell them, regardless of how unreasonable or even fantastical it may be...PT Barnum is jealous. Even though Americans of faith prefer to see their beliefs as distinguished from (aka, better than) our enemies, by faith was the World Trade Center leveled. By faith were Roman Catholic pedophiles protected for centuries. By faith were Branch Davidians massacred in Waco. By faith, Heaven's Gate drank the Koolaid.
Because faith makes bad good and black white.
Christian beliefs were used to defend the practice of slavery in the US (and, ironically, also to fight it). Faith is a primary motivator of wars of aggression throughout history (and still is used to invoke aggression; Axis of Evil, anyone?). By faith were countless women burned at the stake for "witchcraft." Faith has made natural behaviors, like autoeroticism, "bad." And probably the worst thing faith has done is that it presumes to cancel out reason.
Because faith gives people an excuse to hurt others and absolve themselves of responsibility because it's "God's will" or because they believe God has forgiven them.
We need look no farther than the Catholic church for this horror.
Because I want the world to be a better place, and almost all faiths in my experience are divisive and many are outright hateful.
Faith gives people with nothing more than a set of unfounded beliefs a feeling of superiority over those who do not agree with them. In extreme cases, we have the Fred Phelpses of the world, picketing funerals of gay men so as to alert their grieving loved ones that the deceased is now in hell. Faith encourages discrimination. It was once against people of other races, then women, and now it's gays.
And atheists.
Because faith is used as a reason to influence laws in my country and to deny equal rights.
If you can't fill this one in yourself, you haven't been paying attention.
Because despite the truth of Harris' comment, most people I've talked with over the years - hundreds - begin by believing their faith is rational.
This gives me leverage because when they begin to ask questions, they will eventually come face to face with the ultimate irrationality of their beliefs. At this point, many do make the choice to walk away.
Generally, I leave people alone about their faith. When we're talking face to face, I usually don't bring it up, and if it is brought up, I try to change the subject. I'm not out spoiling for a fight, and no...I don't do this because I'm chicken, either. I try to respect others' beliefs, but it becomes damn hard when they condemn me for how I live (where I'm not hurting anyone) while their lives are more fucked up than mine. It's hard to "live and let live" when I tried that for years with my own family, only to learn that they could not and would not.
So after years of walking away or trying to change the subject, I've decided that (sadly) the only recourse I have, outside of simply cutting all these people out of my life completely, is to fight fire with fire. And yes...I have more than enough reasons to believe that faith is dangerous. If you believe and you leave me and others be, fine. I respect that, even if I think what you believe is kooky. But until you've walked a mile in my moccasins, think about what you're asking me to do when you suggest I not talk about how much I hate superstition. You're asking women to stop fighting for equal rights. You're telling Martin Luther King Jr. to shut up. You're telling gays you don't mind what they do as long as they keep their relationship behind closed doors and out of your courts.
d
13 comments
Good arguments, Diana! I’ve never heard it put that way, and I don’t think I’ve ever asked you “Why?” on either count. You are a beloved niece, and that is the main thing for me.
I guess I assumed that you didn’t ask why because you already had a very good idea what the answer was. :)
d
Diana,
Do you enjoy arguing for atheism? Given your reasons, I can see where you’d feel obligated to, but do you enjoy it?
The reason I ask is because over the last few months or so, there have been times when you seemed to be frustrated with members of the other team. I knew you were an active participant in those kinds of discussions elsewhere. I wasn’t sure if that’s how you expressed yourself elsewhere, and just hadn’t done so here before, or if you were stating to get tired of the nonsense.
Dave
Hi, Dave. :)
I do and I don’t enjoy arguing for it. It’s irritainment, really. I mean, my arguments, by the time I make them, tend to stem from frustration with “the other side.” Whether I enjoy it or not depends upon my mood at the moment, though. At the very least, I find it interesting. If the opponent’s arguments aren’t interesting (and I rarely encounter anything new under the sun, as it were), I’m interested in finding new and possibly more effective ways to express my position and the reasons for it. In this exercise, I sometimes err on the side of gentleness and respect (believe it or not). Sometimes, I’m angry. Others, I’m clearly simply mocking. Different approaches work with different people. (Sadly, most theists I’ve encountered apparently consider gentleness and respect to be a sign that I’m wavering, that I haven’t really thought it through, and all I need is a good sermon. This is why I characterize such an approach, generally, as an error.)
How did I express myself elsewhere? You really don’t want to know. :) Sufficeth to say that I’m a lamb now. Even when I’m clearly angry, I’m downright obeisant compared to me 6 or 7 years ago.
I waver between fighting what I see as dangerous superstition and being tolerant of it. Right now, obviously, I’m in a fighting phase. Generally speaking, tolerance of theists tends to get atheists pushed aside, ignored, overruled, and railroaded. And yes…that angers me. So occasionally, I emerge from my cave with guns blazing.
Just curious: if I felt the need occasionally to affirm why I believe in Jesus and why everyone who doesn’t is ignorant, gullible, and doomed, would you also wonder what motivated me to talk about it?
I ask because I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone ask a Christian if they enjoy arguing for Christianity, if they feel obligated to, or if they enjoy it.
d
Your last sentence, Diana, didn’t ring true to my experience.
Perhaps it’s just the circles you do travel and have traveled in but I feel much more uncomfortable when people try to talk me into their particular brand of Christianity. I feel it is presumptuous and intrusive. Faith or lack of it is a very personal part of ones being.
“Just curious: if I felt the need occasionally to affirm why I believe in Jesus and why everyone who doesn’t is ignorant, gullible, and doomed, would you also wonder what motivated me to talk about it?”
Diana,
Yes, if it seemed like a departure from your usual behavior. My problem was I didn’t know what your usual behavior is; all I know of you is what I see through the window of this blog. You’d mentioned before that you’ve had these debates elsewhere so I knew it wasn’t completely unusual, but I never heard the frustration in your voice until recently. I wanted to know if that was normal too, or if it was something new.
Christians talk about their faith (or not) for different reasons, just like anybody else. Some do it because they enjoy it; it gives them an opportunity to talk to strangers. (Some of them even appreciate the rejection they’re bound to get too - that’s how they know they’re doing it right, because in their minds they’re being persecuted for their faith.) Some do it for the attention. Others evangelize because they’re afraid of hell and they don’t want the people they love to end up there. Many (most, maybe?) will talk about it only if someone else brings it up. And some just won’t say anything.
Dave
Your response makes sense, Dave. Thank you (as always). I didn’t think of this as a departure from my usual behavior, as I do this from time to time even on this blog, but I take your word for it. I know I haven’t “gone off” on belief in quite some time.
The frustration in my voice is normal, but I’ve managed to quell it for some time now. Recent events have brought it bubbling back to the surface.
Lorraine, again: I’m jealous of the attitude toward religion where you live. I wish I shared your reality.
d
Diana,
Upon rereading this post, I was stopped in my tracks at “Because faith makes bad good and black white.” and what followed under that heading.
It is a little of throwing the baby out with the bathwater or tarring all with the same brush as it was faith, specifically the Quakers, that led to the abolitionist journal The Atlantic Monthly. It was people who saw fighting for human dignity, health and safety as an extension of their beliefs that led to the Elizabeth Fry Society, the fight for universal enfranchisement and the battle for the ability for all to own land.
I am not saying all Christians do good. Far from it, just as not all atheists do good. But religion as such is not always a force for evil in the world just as one can be a very good person and not believe in god.
As a Christian, I have always been taught and believe that rule one is the question, “How will love best be served?” and that rules 2-infinitely are “See rule one.” Others may interpret religion in other ways. The freedom to believe as I wish is vast but not so vast that I can use it to hurt another.
Also, I see my responsibility to raise and love my child as a sacred trust that must come first, above all else. Just as the most traditional among us see godly love as that of a parent, patient, kind and all-forgiving, I see that our responsibility to our child must be the same. First comes the love. All else is gravy. Were he to murder someone, our love for him would remain unconditional. We would not approve of what he did, far from it, but we would be there for him as he coped with the consequences through the legal system. I would hope that there is nothing that could separate him from our love.
Egalitarianism is not limited to atheists. I don’t think every religion, Christian or otherwise, requires one to check ones brain at the door. I think we have free will, intelligence and a conscience for a reason. The trick is to use them wisely.
Lorraine
Lorraine -
I’m not going to speak for diana - she’s pretty good at doing that herself - but I think you’ve taken her “bad good/black white” comment too broadly. To see good things that religion and religious groups have done, one need simply consider how many hospitals and universities have been founded by them over the years.
It isn’t that all things that spring out of faith are intrinsically good or bad, black or white.
It’s also not necessarily true that because people (or groups) who are religious do good things, it is their religious convictions that motivate them.
It’s that once you’ve convinced yourself that God is on your side, you can do some horrible, ghastly things that you’d never do if you were objectively reasoning through the situation.
Your other comments suggest that you recognize all that, so I’m a little puzzled by what it was in diana’s post that “stopped (you) in your tracks.”
Hi Jay,
As you say, Diana’s very good at speaking for herself.
But to answer your question, what stopped me in my tracks was seeing faith painted as a reason for so many bad things when in reality I see most bad things emanating from self-serving motives on the part of those who hold power or wish to hold power regardless of the power-broker’s religious or non-religious beliefs.
I see religion used, just as any emotion is used, to justify an action and whip the masses into a frenzy. Greed seems to be at the root of most wars, greed and fear of losing what one group has. Whether it is justified along the lines of religion, colour or how one eats their boiled eggs, those remain only justifications, not reasons. In war, as in the media, the facts are only used judiciously to support the emotions, when they prove useful. If not, facts are quickly ignored. As is oft said, “The first casualty in war is truth.”
L.
It’s interesting that you’ve effectively cast religion as little more than a control mechanism which people in positions of power use to manipulate people.
If a leader convinces his or her followers to do something - anything - by appealing to their religious faith, the the consequences of that something are directly due to the faith of those people who have taken the actions.
Regardless of the motivations of the person or persons who instigated them, those actions wouldn’t have taken place absent the faith of his or her followers. You can’t give faith a pass just because it’s not the absolute root cause.
Religion or faith doesn’t have to be the root cause of a problem in order for it to bear a lot of the responsibility.
Are you familiar with Jared Diamond’s thoughts on the origins and purpose of religion?
Jay,
My main stance in this is that people don’t need convincing either to be non-believers or believers. I feel people should be free to believe as they wish as long as it causes no harm.
I hear your point. I don’t wish to convince you of my perspective. Clearly we view this from different points of view and that’s ok. I had thought this a discussion where we each expressed our own points of view rather than skewering others’ perspectives.
I respect that people can be perfectly good people and not believe what I do, whether it’s my point of view on economic theory, atheism, pantheism, or any other ism out there.
We have tried to teach our child to say, “I don’t care for that,” instead of “That’s horrible for all people, in all circumstances for all time,” in the course of his daily life. There are rare circumstance where such absolutes, conveying values to our child, may be called for such as with murder, robbery and cruelty but normal life involves many judgment calls and expressing them as personal opinion rather than universal values of good and bad, to my mind, is more honest.
I find your language incendiary and judgmental, not at all conducive to discussion and certainly not likely to persuade.
Yours Swiftly,
L.
| « it's probably time i blogged again | it takes more faith to be an atheist » |
