Mindful of atheism’s reviled reputation, a new current in non-belief is intent on showing the public what atheists are for. You might be surprised by what’s on their short list. Because, save for the belief-in-a-deity part, it sounds a lot like what most Americans value. Care for one’s community and fellow human beings, love of country and cherished American principles, the pursuit and expansion of knowledge ”” these are the elements of the new “positive atheism.”
The reputation of atheists has not been well-served by the surly attacks on religion by some of atheism’s highest-profile torch carriers. From the best-selling atheist manifestos of recent years to Bill Maher’s new Religulous movie, the loudest voices of non-belief have exhibited much of the same stridency and flair for polemics as the religious fundamentalists they excoriate.
But if Margaret Downey keeps making progress with her campaign to show a different face of atheism, it’s possible to imagine the day when avowing one’s non-belief will not be political suicide. (It seems to be just that today, given that only one member of Congress, Rep. Pete Stark of California, has revealed that he does not believe in a deity; in view of polling data suggesting that some 5% to 15% of Americans are atheists and agnostics, it seems certain there are at least a few more non-believing senators and representatives in the halls ”” and closets ”” of Congress.)
Whenever I read reports about this, I think “you can only be an atheist is a country that is grounded in a religious belief” – in other words, where does the overall sense of morality and wanting to help your neighbors come from? Not from atheism, but from, in the U.S., a founding philosophy of Judeo-Christian thought. It’s easy to be an atheist here – but if we were a complete country of atheists without any Christian foundation, it might not be so nice.
Branford,
Spot on. There was a culture like you describe and its citizens were known as technically competent barbarians.
A kinder, gentler atheism?
😉
Branford, yes, we did have this in the Soviet Union. Without God, these is no foundation, no hope. If you haven’t already read it, read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1973 The Gulag Archipelago. No one knows for sure, but it is estimated that over 60 million were killed by their own atheist government.
4, but it was for the over all good. What’s the loss of a mere 60 million? Actually, if you really want to compare monsters Stalin is head and shoulders above Hitler.
Dress it up all you like. But atheism has proven itself to be the most murderous mindset in human history(they accumulated more corpses in one century than “religion” did in twenty). And atheism contributes nothing to the world and has nothing to contribute.
Googled some numbers for the 20th Century only here: http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/20th.htm
U.S.S.R – 62 million
China (2 regimes) – 45 million
Germany (Holocaust) – 21 million
There other lesser ones. Only a few million. Hardly worth mentioning. Stalin once said, and I don’t have the exact quote: A single death is a tragedy. Many deaths are a statistic.
And how many aborted babies in these countries?
Helen, do you have the current statistics? Let’s add them to the list. Maybe we can surpass Stalin?
62 million under Stalin, as he attempted to collectivize, is a conservative estimate. But it wasn’t atheism alone that led to that barbarism. It was more his socialist dream.
If you want to count the deaths in Russia, you have to start before Stalin, to the collectivization, to the Civil War, to the take over of the government – and atheism was definitely a part of the communist program.
11, so what are the numbers? 100 million?
There are lots of estimates out there, Br. Michael, from the Black Book of Communism on, but I think hard and fast numbers are almost impossible to come by – because of the chaos that prevailed at times and because it is sometimes difficult to decide where to draw the line. Do you count the people who died in the famine that was caused by the pograms? Etc.
I have noticed that the older atheists get, the more they tend to adopt religious tenets. Almost all professed atheists I know over 40 believe in an afterlife (usually not heaven and hell, or everlasting life in New Jerusalem, but it is a start). I know one in his early 60s who does not, and he is probably the most depressed person I know. Of course, from his point of view, he faces oblivion.
[blockquote]”…save for the belief-in-a-deity part, it sounds a lot like what most Americans value. Care for one’s community and fellow human beings, love of country and cherished American principles, the pursuit and expansion of knowledge — these are the elements of the new “positive atheism.”[/blockquote]
Sounds like a group that is quick becoming low-hanging fruit for evangelism!
I am surprised by the amount of vile bile that absence of theistic belief is drawing from commenters. It is surely remarkable that these “believers” seem to think that absence of theist belief causes evils or that theist belief suppresses evils. What among the horrors catalogued above was caused by lack of belief? Surely, um, none. Some of the specific assertions deserve reponse. In comment #1, there is an assertion that atheism can only exist (I think the intended meaning is “can only work”) in a theistic culture. Buddhism (especially Theravada Buddhism) and Taoism are conspicuously not theistic. One must scour the historical record to find wars and such launched by Taoists and Buddhists or by countries where that predominates; one comes up empty in a search for horrors such as The Inquistion or The Crusades in the history of Taoist or Buddhist cultures — cultures atheist to the core. And what of Stalin, China (surely PRC is meant?) or The Holocaust? I’ll skip over the PRC, whose history is very complex, but Russia and Germany are conspicuously countries with a long history of Christianity before the events commented upon. Truthfully, that history is part of what made The Holocaust so stunning to me as to most observers. Conclusions, after the fact, as to the the reasons for these sordid episodes of history just do not wind up attributing them to atheism, but rather observing the apparently irrelevant fact that the perps were not theists. And what of slavery? I have heard, enough times to be sick of hearing, that Christianity, specifically Christianity, led to its abolition in the West. And who, may I ask, and of what background may I ask, and of what religion may I ask, committed this great crime against humanity in the first place?
Our religious tradition has lots of blood on its hands. Lots.
Finally, permit me to turn to theology. A belief that humans are inherently evil, likewise for society, is heterodox, and if advanced today clearly heretical. That is not the Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, or …) belief. It’s just not a Christian belief to say that one who has never been engaged by the question (reality if you wish) of the existence of a God is evil or will behave any worse than devout believers. The orthodox Christian position on this, in simple language, is that God does not make junk.
13, I was just courious. But I would think that those who starved should be included. Nevertheless I think we are all agreed that Stalin was a real monster.
Does our religious tradition have a lot of blood on its hands. In one sense, it does. But this is completely misleading. The germane question is: Does mankind have a lot of blood on its hands, regardless of whether the belief in a god is present? Mankind is a warlike creature; evolution has made it so. We are bloodier than lions only because our numbers are so large and we cooperate in warfare so well.
To single out religious warfare is an unsound and misleading arguement. Our bloodiest war was the Civil War and religion was not at stake. And you have left out the 1st WW and a few others of that sort, bloodier than any Crusade or Inquisition, neither of which was particularly bloody (in fact). And you do well to leave out Red China because under Mao, the death rate in all probability exceeds Stalin’s and Hitler’s score (although this can never be demonstrated accurately) and this was an completely atheistic regime.
As to slavery and Christianity, you need to reexamine your history. Slavery is an ancient practice, unrelated to religion. At no time in available records has slavery not been present in some form. Even the Athenians, enlightened as they were, kept slaves. You would do better to ask, “Where in history can we see slavery abolished on moral or humane grounds?” One obvious answer would be right here and in England. Larry
tgd #16 wrote,
What “orthoxy” are you talking about? Ever hear of “original sin”? Or read Book 5, Chapter 4 of The Brothers Karamazov?
Sorry, forgot to include the quote from #16:
“The orthodox Christian position on this, in simple language, is that God does not make junk.”
This is true. But it is also true that the finest piece of crystal can be spattered with mud or broken. And that a sand-casting is covered with dirt, dull and non-descript.
Replying to #18 here: I admit that in asking who committed slavery “in the first place” I did not write what I meant. What I meant to point out was that at the time slavery was abolished in the U.S. and in English colonies, and at the time the British slave trade was abolished, the slaveholders and traders were largely Christian and both countries generally considered themselves to reflect Christian values. Regarding the PRC, I meant what I wrote: the situation is/was complex; theist or atheist did not particularly enter into the course of events there.
I’ll repeat that atheism was not the cause of most evil done by non-theists, nor does theism seem to restrain theists from deluded (i.e., evil) behaviors. In other words, I challenge the claim that atheism somehow caused deluded behaviors and any claim that there have not been, or are not, non-theist cultures/countries/religions that have been, relatively speaking, lights shining in the darkness. Recognizing and nurturing the good seems more worth effort than rants on the alleged failings of non-theists.
Atheism does not cause “deluded behaviors.” What is does cause is the inability to set boundaries such that good and bad are distinguishable by any means other than relative ones. If merely relative, then right and wrong are entirely malleable nd the worst may become the best because of context, social necessity, personal ambition, or simple confusion. One cannot defend charity, say, on atheistic grounds, for atheism sets no standards. And if it secular humanism which assumes that charity is self evident and needs no defense because it is inherent in human nature, the greed can be defended on the same grounds. LM