Good Atheism, Bad Atheism

~ by Samir Selmanovic

Even though there haven’t been any new arguments against the existence of God since late 18th century, atheism is hot again. The enlightenment—a powerful movement in recent centuries that helped us question superstitious stories told by our grandmother as well as theology taught by respected university professors—has triumphed. One glance at the Google News page makes this abundantly clear. Religion is not in charge of the world anymore.

However, spurred by fear of religious fundamentalism, new atheists want to go further than their forefathers. Instead of arguing about the existence of God, they are fighting against the existence of religion itself, calling humanity to brace for an apocalyptic showdown between faith and reason. 

Religion does deserve to be challenged. “Deserves” has two meanings. First, religion deserves the pain of criticism and correction because of its failures to live up to its own ideals. Second, religion deserves the blessing of criticism and correction because it has often been a precious catalyst for justice, peace and beauty in the world. Recent challenges should therefore be welcome by religious people as a chance to see, to grieve, to repent, and then with renewed wisdom act for the common good.

Atheism at its best is crucial in this process of religious renewal. With its own set of beliefs, constructive atheism—often described as humanism—sees God as a human creation and not vice versa. It therefore locates the mystery of life in this world, this matter, this humanity, as the only one we have. It insists that all religion must land on the ground where we humans actually live. Religion must learn to live on earth. If religion is not valuable on earth, it is not valuable at all.

Constructive humanism’s contribution to our life together on this planet is its insistence that every religion ought to embrace, not just its adherents, but the whole planet as their ethical community. In our newly small planet, this is not a matter of humility or virtue any more, but of survival. In this way, these atheists are like the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, calling people out of their hypocrisy toward better faith and a better world.

However, attacks that fight against all religion, instead of bad religion, are bad atheism. It reinforces the suspicion of people who cling to the status quo in religion that atheists are on a power trip of their own, on a mission to strip the world of mystery, beauty and spirit—getting rid of anything and everything that humans cannot understand, control or subjugate.

The problem with anti-religionist atheism is not that it questions the existence or character of God. It is problematic because it embodies a contempt for any faith at all—any belief or practice toward creating value and meaning for ourselves. In a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, Lee Siegel writes,

“The leap of faith is really a very ordinary operation. We take it every time we fall in love, expect kindness from someone, impulsively sacrifice some little piece of our self-interest. After all, you cannot prove the existence of truth, beauty, goodness and decency; you cannot prove the dignity of being human, or your obligation to treat people as ends and not just as means. You take a gamble on the existence of these inestimable things. For that reason, when you lay scientific, logical and empirical siege to the leap of faith at the core of the religious impulse, you are not just attacking faith in God. You are attacking the act of faith itself, faith in anything that can’t be proved. But it just so happens that the qualities that make life rich, joyful and humane cannot be proved.”

Atheistic fundamentalism is a dogmatic expression of a worldview equally capable of destroying humanity with zeal and effectiveness as any fundamentalist religion. Shutting out the spiritual, mystical, metaphorical and transcendent, atheistic fundamentalism resorts to cleaning up the world of those who disagree and creating a naked public square, devoid of any options but its own.

While philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche rightfully observed that “Every truth is a tool in the hands of those in power,” atheistic fundamentalists have come to an irrational belief that they are an exception as they are trying to sell their ideas to those to whom they so openly condescend. What can be a greater power trip than believing everyone is on a power trip except oneself? Instead of promoting a secularization that fosters religious pluralism, these atheists impose secularism—a closed worldview, devoid of the windows and doors of self-doubt and hope.

To the end of his life, Sigmund Freud was an uncompromising atheist, describing belief in God in his book The Future of an Illusion as a “collective neurosis.” But his last book was titled Moses and Monotheism, in which he suggested a surprising view about religion, recognizing the poetry and promise of religion. He argued that Judaism and other expressions of monotheism helped free humanity from bondage to the immediate, empirical world, opening up fresh and renewing possibilities for human spirit and practice. He argued that people who can worship what is presented in symbolic terms, practice the ultimate exploration of the invisible inner life. For Freud, faith in God opened a gift of inwardness and imagination.

Both faith and doubt are opposites of certainty and therefore part of the same whole that refuses to see only the obvious. To end religion, would be to end imagination.

The stingy polemics of religionists who defend religion at all costs on one side and anti-religionists on the other seem like arguments fought in an attempt to justify closing one’s ears to hearing the Other and sharing the planet with others. Both of their identities depend on a divided world. Instead of leading us to generosity and great hope toward an unknown future, and instead of enlightening and inspiring us, religionists and anti-religionists are moving us into a new dark age, both using God to bring an end to imagination.

People will not stop looking into the past and mining religion for its spiritual treasures and hard-learned historical lessons. And they will not stop organizing themselves into new kinds of religious communities. For we have learned from human history that religion does not have to be the opium, but can be the poetry of the people.

(from Signs of the Times, Australia, March 2008, adapted by the author)

Comments

[Ray Ingles]

For a different perspective, I'd suggest David Sloan Wilson's "Evolution For Everyone". He makes a pretty good case for the historical usefulness of religion - he actually changed my mind about the subject. However, he makes the useful distinction between beliefs that are 'factually realistic' - actually true - and 'practically realistic' - false, but motivating useful behaviors. (He also points out that it's not clear that it's necessary to sacrifice factual realism for practical realism.)

A problem with your analysis here is that atheism does disavow things that humans "cannot" understand - but that doesn't mean that it fails to acknowledge that there are things humans don't (yet) understand. Atheism doesn't accept the 'supernatural' - things which humans can't ever understand. That's the essential difference between atheism and religion.

One can accept that not everything is currently understood about, say, beauty or goodness, without assuming that such things are forever beyond human comprehension. (How about love? Aside from the fact that I can feel love, I have good evidence for it from how other people behave. After all, how many songs are there about the difference between saying you love someone and actually behaving as if you do? Love can be seen by its effects on behavior, QED.)

[Samuel Skinner]

?

To the person who wrote the article... what the heck are you talking about? Atheism is the lack of belief in God. There have been new arguments since the 18th century (see science).

Also, religion is not the same thing as imagination, wonder, mystery and fluufy puppies. It is about God. And God doesn't exist. You can't seem to understand that people can have good things without turing of their minds and having belief.

Then there is atheist fundamentalists... what is next- the militant wing of the salvation army?

[Samir]

Thank you Ray for your comment and the book recommendation. I just got two books that seem to be helpful for the conversation, The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville, and Philosophers Without Gods by Louise M. Antony.

[Jeff Carlson]

Very thought-provoking! Thanks!

[Zane]

Hey Samir,

Great post! Another book recommendation for you:

"A Secular Age" by Charles Taylor

Incredible book that won Taylor the Templeton prize. In it, he traces the rise of "unbelief" in the West from 1500ff--ethics, sociology, literature, philosophy, theology--Taylor tackles it all and gives a nuanced account of the various forms of belief and unbelief (and their "rationality").

I'd love to read that Antony volume sometime. I've wanted to get my hands on it...

[Lauren Roos]

I loved this! Thank you, Samir. Recently I attended a conference for church school teachers where we were told (in a very "fire and brimstone" fashion) that if we had any doubts or questioned any of the doctrines, we should "just get out" and had no place teaching children about God. While I fumed and looked through my purse for ear plugs I found myself profoundly grateful that the God I serve welcomes questions. If it's going to be worth anything, religion does need to be challenged and questioned, just like any belief or unbelief.

[Sam]

Science could have never existed if it weren't for imagination

[Pastor Matthew Haag]

Once again I decided to post my response to one of your other articles. As I have received no response, I thought it also pertinent to list it under this "good atheism, bad atheism page". Once again I question where Jesus Christ comes into play in this place? How can you "accept good atheism" if you have faith in a God- and specifically in Jesus Christ saving you from your sins! Faith isn't about "feelings", but about believing and knowing that Jesus Christ came and died, and rose again- for your sins (See John 20:31, Romans 5:5-8)! I have several questions about this organization, especially from a Christian standpoint. First of all, what does the Bible say about the unification of all religions, or even the respect of all religions as equal in the process of getting to God? I thought that Jesus Christ was the only way to get to God through His death and resurrection (John 14:6; 1 Cor. 15:17; Rom. 4-8)? What happens to this in your new "faith community"? If you don't know Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour you are therefore not a Christian right? As a follower of Jesus Christ, I am called to reach out to other religions, understand them, but to ultimately turn their thoughts to Christ and what He has done for them (see Colossians 2:6-8; 2 Corinthians 10:4-5). I think that it is interesting to have many faiths on your campus, but how is this "togetherness" pushing you to a deeper understanding of who God is if you are so confused about who He is in your personal life. If there is no one way to heaven, and if universalism is the way to go, how can you call yourself a Christian? Where in the Bible- which, by the way is God's Word, not some Thomas Merton, C.S. Lewis, or Henry Nouwen!
My second question is related to the first question, but separate because it is almost more important. What is your view of the atonement of Jesus Christ? Who is Jesus Christ for your "faith community"? Is He just some "man" or "great teacher"- if so don't claim yourselves to be Christian, because as C.S. Lewis noted in Mere Christianity, He does not leave Himself open to such nonsense! He died, and rose again for your sins- and if you don't believe this you are still in your sins! It scares me to see none of this anywhere on your website! No mention of Jesus, no reason to do this except to be "in community" or to "feel good" about reaching out to people who are hurting (which IS being done throughout Christendom contrary to a lot of emerging church thought!). You only mention "God" in your posts- who is this God- where'd He come from, why does He matter? Also, where'd we come from? This God? Why? What's our purpose (it should be Revelation 4:11; Colossians 3:1-3; 2 Corinthians 5:16-21)?
I hope you at least respond to some of these questions because they are very concerning! Who is God?? Which God?? Why should I follow yours?? I know that you may be trying to find this out, but then don't yet call yourself Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Whatever because it shows that your not any of these without actually knowing what they are or what you believe. Don't generalize Christians into one box just because you don't agree with a single church or thought process- there are churches that care, give to the poor and live in community without denying the deity and salvific nature of Christ! Without Christ, there can be no point- your not building followers of Him- but followers of feelings and social justice- unless this is what you want!