The 21st Century Athiest

[MrBishop]

The 21st century atheist

Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naively pro-science

Dylan Evans
Monday May 2, 2005
The Guardian

There are many species of atheism, just as there are many species of religion. But while many religions still thrive, most of the atheisms that have ever existed are now extinct.
The non-religious person today is, therefore, rather like a person who wanders into a shop to buy a breakfast cereal and finds only one variety is for sale. Moreover, this variety isn't very tasty, because the kind of atheism that flourishes today is old and tired.



Today's prominent atheists - people such as Jonathan Miller and Richard Dawkins - hawk around a belief system that reeks of the 19th century, which is not surprising, for that is when it was born. Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate - thus manifesting all three of the main characteristics of the old atheism in a particularly pure form. His attacks on religion are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give atheism a bad name. As a friend of mine once commented, no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.
Isn't it about time that atheists tried to imagine what some other forms of atheism might look like? Not in the hope of replacing one orthodoxy with another, but simply in order to challenge other atheists to imagine still more ways of being nonreligious - to encourage them to construct their own forms of atheism, rather than buying a ready-made version off the shelf.

Atheism should be more like a set of Lego blocks than a pre-assembled toy. The challenge and the opportunity that it offers is that of constructing one's own personal philosophy of life, a philosophy that is not put together according to any set of instructions handed down from on high.

As a way of kicking off the debate, let me outline my own variety. It would be a travesty if I were to pretend that this is the only worthwhile kind. But I do think it is more appropriate for the 21st century. My kind of atheism takes issue with the old atheism on all three of its main tenets: it values religion; treats science as simply a means to an end; and finds the meaning of life in art.

When I say that I value religion, I don't mean that I see any truth in the stories about gods, devils, souls and saviours. But I do think there is one respect in which religion is more truthful than science - in its depiction of the long ing for transcendent meaning that lies in man's heart. No scientific theory has ever done justice to this longing, and in this respect religions paint more faithful pictures of the human mind. My kind of atheism sees religions as presenting potent metaphors and images to represent human aspirations for transcendence. It is only when these metaphors are understood as such, and not mistaken for literal statements, that the true value of religion is revealed.

Here is a parable to explain what I mean: once upon a time, a talented artist painted a picture of a beautiful landscape on the wall of his house. People came from all around to see the picture. It was so beautiful that they would spend whole days staring at it.

Led on by wishful thinking, some people even began to forget that they were looking at a painting, and came to believe that the wall was a window. So the artist removed one of the bricks in the wall, allowing the illusory nature of the painting to become clear.

Some of those who had mistaken the painting for reality were upset to have their illusion shattered. But the wise ones thanked the artist profusely. "By revealing the fictitious nature of this landscape," they said, "you have allowed us to appreciate the beauty of your art."

I think the best way to think about religion is to see it like the painting in this parable. In other words, religions are beautiful things, but their beauty can only be truly appreciated when they are seen as human creations - as works of art.

Atheists who attack religions for painting a false picture of the world are as unsophisticated and immature as religious believers, who mistake the picture for reality. The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is - a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality, and which only a child would reject for being false.

· Dylan Evans is senior lecturer in intelligent autonomous systems at the University of the West of England and author of Placebo: The Belief Effect www.dylan.org.uk

Fundamental Athiests??!?

[Tessar]

In my opinion, the article is a load of BS. First he slaps athiests, and then he slaps religion. But wait! Now he slaps athiests again, but then back to religion, ending with a general slap to everyone whether they believe in religion or not.

As well, I believe he makes the assumption that if you are religious you dislike science, and/or that science is what draws people away from religion, or makes them not believe in it. Both of those are just too silly to even consider.

I don't really think it's a very well though out article--to me it feels as if he just sat down and slapped up whatever popped into his head at the moment.

[inked]

Mon Dieu! The deconstruction of atheism on critical grounds....What is the world coming to?

[Rían]

Fascinating article, Mr. B! I"m heading out for a bit, but I will turn it over in my mind while I'm out (isn't it wonderful how our bodies can be doing one thing but our minds another!) and come back with some thoughts soon

[Rían]

from the article, from the author or possibly an editor
Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naively pro-science

So far, so good ...

There are many species of atheism, just as there are many species of religion. But while many religions still thrive, most of the atheisms that have ever existed are now extinct.

Are there many species of atheism? Or are there just many atheists with different personalities? It seems to me that there is only one type of atheism, with the basic tenet being that there is/are no god/gods. What do you guys think?

I think what is more accurate is that there are many worldview beliefs: atheism is one, Christianity another, Buddhism a third, Hinduism a fourth, Mormonism a fifth, etc. etc. And personally, I would add agnosticism (the fixed variety) as another. They're all equivalent in that they involve belief about the actual nature of things. I think there are sub-divisions among these, but I would make a division where the basic tenets become mutually exclusive.

Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate - thus manifesting all three of the main characteristics of the old atheism in a particularly pure form.

Fascinating observation - what do you guys think? Do you guys agree that these things are "all three of the main characteristics of the old atheism"? Do you think atheists today have any or all of these characteristics?

His attacks on religion are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give atheism a bad name.

I agree. And the same goes for Christians (I'll just speak for my own worldview) that are vitriolic and bad-tempered in attacking other worldviews. Reminds me of a funny book title I saw recently: "When Bad Christians Happen to Good People"

As a friend of mine once commented, no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.

Funny!

Isn't it about time that atheists tried to imagine what some other forms of atheism might look like? Not in the hope of replacing one orthodoxy with another, but simply in order to challenge other atheists to imagine still more ways of being nonreligious - to encourage them to construct their own forms of atheism, rather than buying a ready-made version off the shelf.

I'm assuming that the basic tenet of any of these versions is still that god/gods does not/do not exist. The rest seems unrelated to atheism, tho - it seems more a matter of personality and how one views other people.

Atheism should be more like a set of Lego blocks than a pre-assembled toy. The challenge and the opportunity that it offers is that of constructing one's own personal philosophy of life, a philosophy that is not put together according to any set of instructions handed down from on high.

If one believes one's self is the highest authority, as I imagine most atheists do, then certainly it is logical that one should construct "one's own personal philosophy of life." However, if one believes that there is an authority higher than one's self, then certainly it is logical that one should consider a set of instructions purported to come from that authority. The two methods are equivalent, both based upon a personal belief.

As a way of kicking off the debate, let me outline my own variety. It would be a travesty if I were to pretend that this is the only worthwhile kind. But I do think it is more appropriate for the 21st century. My kind of atheism takes issue with the old atheism on all three of its main tenets: it values religion; treats science as simply a means to an end; and finds the meaning of life in art.

Ah, "values religion" - methinks I've seen that type of atheism before ...

(con't)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by rian

I think what is more accurate is that there are many worldview beliefs: atheism is one, Christianity another, Buddhism a third, Hinduism a fourth, Mormonism a fifth, etc. etc

buddhism is an atheistic religion atheism isn't a seperate 'worldview' it is just a certain belief, just as animism, animatism, monotheism and polytheism are certain beliefs, they just add to religions, or lack of

[Nurvingiel]

Atheism seems to have two definitions. One is the one we know, about not believing in any diety. The other is the abscence of theistic beliefs. In terms of Western (in a loose use of the word) religions, both definitions mean the same thing - that atheists are not religious because they don't believe in any god. You can't be Jewish, Christian, or Muslim and an atheist at the same time.

However:

It is difficult to categorize the Eastern thought systems in distinct terms of theism or atheism. Therefore, it should be noted that even the thoughts that would be characterized as atheistic in the western sense, often have some theistic tendencies, and vice versa.

From this handy Wikipedia article.
This was from the section discussing Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese traditional religion.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

buddhism is an atheistic religion

yes ....

atheism isn't a seperate 'worldview' it is just a certain belief ...

I disagree. Perhaps we have a different definition of "worldview" (or "world view" - I've seen it both ways). I think of a worldview as basically a person's belief about the true state of the universe, and therefore what they base their behavioral choices on.

[Rían]

When I say that I value religion, I don't mean that I see any truth in the stories about gods, devils, souls and saviours. But I do think there is one respect in which religion is more truthful than science - in its depiction of the long ing for transcendent meaning that lies in man's heart. No scientific theory has ever done justice to this longing, and in this respect religions paint more faithful pictures of the human mind.

last sentence - good observation, IMO.

My kind of atheism sees religions as presenting potent metaphors and images to represent human aspirations for transcendence. It is only when these metaphors are understood as such, and not mistaken for literal statements, that the true value of religion is revealed.

And here we have it - the most important statement, IMO, and one I've seen before.

And one that I abhor - it gives just about the worst insult one human being can give to another.

The kind of atheism that he does NOT hold at least says that religious people are wrong, but rationally wrong, and rational. It's like two doctors consulting -

Dr. 1 : "Well, looking at the evidence, I think that if we performed surgery, we would find that there is a cyst on the ovary."

Dr. 2 : "I think you're totally wrong! I think we would NOT find a cyst. I think we would find endometriosis."

However, the author's brand of atheism doesn't even give religious people the courtesy of saying they're rationally wrong. It says that religious people are both wrong and irrational; IMO, one of the highest forms of insult and condescension and looking down on someone that exists.

I've always said in the beliefs-based discussions here that I disagree with people but I give them the honor of assuming they have thought out their beliefs and that they have a brain and can think rationally. The author's form of atheism not only says that religious people haven't thought out their beliefs, but that they're incapable of doing so, unless perhaps enlightened out of their stupidity by some kind atheist.

On his use of "transcendence" - wouldn't a more proper word be "hallucination" or something along those lines, if, in reality, there is nothing to transcend to? And if there is nothing to transcend to, should people be promoting transcendence? Or do you guys think promoting false beliefs is a good thing?

Here is a parable to explain what I mean: once upon a time, a talented artist painted a picture of a beautiful landscape on the wall of his house. People came from all around to see the picture. It was so beautiful that they would spend whole days staring at it.

Led on by wishful thinking, some people even began to forget that they were looking at a painting, and came to believe that the wall was a window. So the artist removed one of the bricks in the wall, allowing the illusory nature of the painting to become clear.

Some of those who had mistaken the painting for reality were upset to have their illusion shattered. But the wise ones thanked the artist profusely. "By revealing the fictitious nature of this landscape," they said, "you have allowed us to appreciate the beauty of your art."

One question: WHY did these people think the wall might be a window?

OK, two questions : (or kind of one and a half - it's more a clarifying question) : If that same talented artist painted an amazingly beautiful picture of trees standing on their heads with elephants playing poker perched among the roots (which are now up in the sky), would people think that they were looking out a window?

I think the best way to think about religion is to see it like the painting in this parable. In other words, religions are beautiful things, but their beauty can only be truly appreciated when they are seen as human creations - as works of art.

There are certainly beautiful elements in religions. IMO.

Atheists who attack religions for painting a false picture of the world are as unsophisticated and immature as religious believers, who mistake the picture for reality. The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is - a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality, and which only a child would reject for being false.

I think what the author is missing is that the only reason that people would mistake a picture for reality is that it actually looks like a reality that people have seen. But I'll stop now; two lengthy posts (and one short one) in a row is enough!

Originally Posted by MrBishop

Fundamental Athiests??!?

*whispers "a-t-h-E-i-s-t" *

[Count Comfect]

Artistic illiteracy is definitely not a tenet of 'old atheism.' There, the author is wrong. The disdain for religion and the fanatical devotion to science, on the other hand, often are. And that's all I'm going to say as it is all I feel at all qualified to say.