5 Myths Many Atheists Believe about Religion
June 21st, 2011 | Posted by: Chris Stedman
Today’s guest post is by Be Scofield; originally published on Tikkun Daily, AlterNet and The Religious Left, it addresses what he believes are several myths or generalizations that some atheists hold about religion and the religious. Lots of food for thought here, but perhaps what I appreciate most of all is that it ends with a call for greater dialogue between the religious and atheists. Check it out!
Despite their emphasis on reason, evidence and a desire to see through false truth claims, many atheists hold surprisingly ill-informed beliefs about religion. Many of these myths go unquestioned simply because they serve the purpose of discrediting religion at large. They allow for the construction of a straw man i.e. a distorted and simplistic representation of religion which can be easily attacked, summarily dismissed and ridiculed. Others who genuinely believe these false claims merely have a limited understanding of the ideas involved and have never thoroughly examined them. But, myths are myths and they should be acknowledged for what they are.
I’m not saying that atheists aren’t knowledgeable when it comes to religion. To the contrary, atheists in general know more about the particularities of religion than most religious people do. A recent study confirmed it. I have no doubt that they can rattle off all of the myths, falsities, fanciful claims, dangerous ideas and barbarous actions committed by the religious. It makes sense as a targeted group will generally know more about the dominant group than the other way around. But of course simply knowing more than other religious people about their traditions doesn’t preclude holding to false beliefs of their own.
There are certainly more than five myths about religion that are perpetuated by some atheists (and in some cases the religious). However, I’ve chosen what I feel to be the most significant false claims made by atheists to help provide a more accurate understanding of religion and to pave the groundwork for dialogue between these seemingly two opposing groups.
Now, let’s examine these myths.
5. Liberal and Moderate Religion Justifies Religious Extremism
While this often repeated claim seems logical at first glance, upon examination it is nothing more than another simplistic idea that provides a feel good rallying cry for those who want to denounce religion in its entirety.
Sam Harris states that moderates are “in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world” and “religious tolerance–born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God–is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” And Richard Dawkins states, “The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” Christopher Hitchens has called liberation theology “sinister nonsense” and compared the liberal Unitarian tradition to rats and vermin.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it leads to some unwanted logical conclusions when applied equally to other ideas. It is hypocritical to selectively apply the principle where it suits one’s needs but not elsewhere.
We can ask whether or not all liberal and moderate expressions of something are responsible for their most extreme forms. Are the people who casually smoke marijuana in any way responsible for the death of someone involved in a violent heroin drug trade? Is a social drinker of alcohol creating the environment that leads to alcoholism? Should they be shunned for supporting conditions that cause tens of thousands of alcohol-related unwanted deaths? Is a pediatrician responsible for Nazi medical experiments simply because he or she participates in the field of medicine? How about politics? Is a liberal democracy responsible for forms of government such as totalitarianism or fascism? Is a very progressive Democrat like Dennis Kucinich responsible for George Bush’s torture policies because he merely participates in the U.S. political system? If so, it means that one’s participation in a political system should be blamed for the worst crimes of any government leader.
I could list example after example, but to state my point simply, the more rational and tolerant uses of science, religion, medicine or government cannot be blamed for the destructive and harmful uses of them.
4. Religion Requires a Belief in a Supernatural God
This claim, expressed by Christopher Hitchens as “to be religious is to be a theist” seems to be a difficult myth for some atheists to abandon. Many seem content with this intellectually inaccurate definition of religion. However, if you open any “Religion 101″ textbook you will find a variety of traditions that don’t require belief in any god, miracles or supernatural entities including Taoism, Jainism, Confucianism and Buddhism. Unitarian Universalism doesn’t require belief in any divinity either. And of course there are non-theists such as deists, pantheists and panentheists who are practicing members of Christianity, Judaism and Islam as well as other progressive traditions. There are many Christians who don’t literally believe the stories of the Bible. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of them. Thomas Jefferson, as well as other “founding fathers” are prominent examples of deists within American history. Jefferson created his own Bible in which he removed all references to miracles and supernatural claims. But yet he was still religious. He stated,
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. –Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Others simply describe God as the natural order, the healing and renewing power of existence or the creative principle in life. Yet, despite all of these non-supernatural God forms many still attend religious services, draw inspiration from sacred texts and enjoy the benefits of a spiritual community.
I understand why anti-religious atheists are so reluctant to accept the fact that being religious doesn’t mean belief in the supernatural. The simplistic and convenient myth they’ve constructed would be shattered. It would be much harder to attack religion as it would mean a more sophisticated and refined critique, one that would be more difficult to arouse the passions of dogmatic religion haters.
3. Religion Causes Bad Behavior
A common way for atheists to denounce religion is to simply list all of the horrors that have been done in the name of religion and then say, “Look how awful religion is!” Religion becomes synonymous with all of the bad things done by religious people. But is religion the cause of bad behavior or simply a mitigating factor? Christopher Hitchens provides some surprising insight: “What’s innate in our species isn’t the fault of religion. But the bad things that are innate in our species are strengthened by religion and sanctified by it… So religion is a very powerful re-enforcer of our backward, clannish, tribal element. But you can’t say it’s the cause of it. To the contrary, it’s the product of it.” Amen! Hitchens says that religion is not the cause of bad behavior! Many of us religious progressives have been making this point for a long time. Of course religion is also a very powerful re-enforcer of our most beautiful, inspiring and profound aspects as well. It can inspire the best and worst in us.
This point is very important because it focuses the attention on the real source of bad behavior which is human nature, not religion. Understanding this is important when defending against attempts to dismiss religion because of the bad things done in its name. Certainly, religion plays a role in conflicts but it is just one factor among many such as ideological, political and sociological ones. If religion were the cause of bad behavior getting rid of it would simply make all divisiveness and conflict disappear. But of course this would not be the case. And, if religion were to be eliminated other forms of associations with the same group dynamics and dangers would arise.
Religion is like a knife which can be used by a surgeon to save lives or as a dagger to kill someone.
2. Atheists are Anti-Religious
This false belief stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism and religion are. Atheism is not in any way shape or form related to an opinion about religion. It is simply the assertion that god does not exist, nothing more and nothing less. Religion is a broad category that encompasses traditions which include supernatural belief and those that do not. And, as I’ve already stated there are many atheists who are already religious practitioners.
Despite atheism being quite a straightforward concept, many continually misrepresent what it means. A prominent example comes from the atheist writer Greta Christina. She recently stated, “Atheists, by definition, don’t think any religion has any reasonable likelihood of being true.” Wrong. Atheists by definition assert that god does not exist. Besides, what does it mean for a religion to be true or not true when a religion doesn’t require any supernatural belief? Again, being an atheist has nothing to do with ones position on religion. A fellow atheist seminarian friend of mine at Starr King School for the Ministry clearly demonstrates this point:
First, I think there is a difference between being an atheist and being anti-religious. They are orthogonal. There is also a difference between being anti-religious and being opposed to the effects of particular religious traditions. These terms should not be conflated. Since when did not believing in God mean that you are opposed to other people believing in God and or practicing religion regardless of whether they believe? I am an atheist. Just to be clear, by that I mean I don’t believe that there is a god, a higher consciousness, or a spirit. I am also opposed to the effects of certain religious traditions. But I am not by any means anti-religious. I don’t deny the value that religion or religious practice, (whether actual belief in god and the afterlife, or simply liking the pretty candles at mass and multiple opportunities for community) brings to people including myself. Religion has a lot to offer and to deny that is to deny the complexity of the human condition.
The concept of an atheist who practices religion is hard to swallow for many. Yet, the simple facts reveal millions of people who practice religion and are simultaneously atheists.
Elsewhere there are examples of atheists and agnostics who support and work in relation to religion. Bruce Sheiman, author of “An Atheist Defends Religion,” has done great work on the subject. Chris Stedman of NonProphet Status is an atheist who has worked with Eboo Patel’s Interfaith Youth Core and is now working for the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard as the Interfaith and Community Service Fellow. In fact, the silent majority of atheists are not militant, but because of popular anti-religious voices like Christopher Hitchens atheism becomes associated with the most stridently militant.
1. All Religions are the Same and are “Equally Crazy”
Many atheists often claim that they are wrongly accused of not understanding the differences between religions. “Of course we do!” I’ve heard them say. But yet this is meaningless unless they are willing to treat these differencesdifferently. Case and point is the latest article from Greta Christina where she asks, “Are All Religions Equally Crazy?” and answers a resounding, Yes. She describes a number of strange Mormon beliefs and practices, but then realizes that other religions aren’t any better. If her point was to illustrate that some religions have strange beliefs, she succeeded. She concludes,
But all religions are out of touch with reality. All religions are implausible, based on cognitive biases, and unsupported by any good evidence whatsoever. All of them ultimately rely on faith — i.e., an irrational attachment to a pre-existing idea regardless of any evidence that contradicts it — as the core foundation of their belief. All of them contort, ignore, or deny reality in order to maintain their attachment to their faith.
This conclusion is simply false. Her reasoning sweeps up all religious expressions including those which aren’t reliant upon any supernatural beliefs, miracles or magical claims. For example, by using the term “all religions” she conflates a church attending atheist Unitarian Universalist with a Bible believing, homophobic theist. The venerable Vietnamese Buddhist religious leader Thich Nhat Hanh becomes synonymous with Pat Robertson simply because they are both religious leaders. Dr. King is in the same category as Osama Bin Laden. Deists are conflated with theists. Those who reject literal religious claims are placed in the same category who believe snakes talked in the Bible. Christina leaves no room for religious people who are tolerant, non-believers or those who view religion metaphorically. Writing an article that concludes all religions are equally crazy is like saying that all Americans are nationalists and imperialists and then pointing to the part of the population that supports U.S. wars.
Where is the evidence that many of these atheists can make any meaningful distinctions between religions? It’s one thing to make the claim but where is the recognition of humanistic, non-literal and progressive religious traditions? Hitchens calls Unitarianism rats and vermin. Christina calls all religions equally crazy. Dawkins says the teachings of moderate religion lead to extremism. Harris claims that moderates are responsible for much of the conflict in the world. If there were any serious attempts to show they know the difference between religions, these leaders in the movement would have exhibited it by now. But time and time again all we get from these prominent atheists something akin to “all religions are equally crazy.”
I think we can move beyond the religion = crazy/atheism = dangerous dichotomy that so dominates our day. To do so we must honestly examine the myths and misunderstandings of both positions. Genuine dialogue between the religious and non-religious is possible. We are better at finding points of agreement politically, socially and ideologically and seeking common ground to organize around. We certainly won’t agree on everything, but in the end all parties should leave more knowledgeable and better prepared to deal with the way religion impacts our everyday lives and the global sphere.
The content of this blog reflects the views of its author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Chris Stedman.
Robert James Scofield, “Be,” is a San Francisco based activist working to combine spirituality with anti-racism and social justice. He is studying to be an interfaith minister at Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley. Be is the founder of God Bless the Whole World, a free online resource with hundreds of videos of leading visionaries related to social justice and spirituality. He writes for Tikkun magazine and his work has appeared on Alternet.org, IntegralWorld and FactNet.
June 21st, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Hmmm… I agree and disagree with your premises…
5. Behaviors such as smoking pot do not equal the wholesale ignorance espoused by even the most moderate of religious folk. When your very doctrine relies on denial of critical thinking, you are setting a scary precedence. Even moderate religions praise the person who can deny reality strongly. “oooo, your faith is so strong”
4. A deist by definition believes in a supernatural, being. It may be unnamed, but it is something that is outside of nature. As are pantheists and panentheists. If you are Christian, even isf you don’t believe in the literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian bible,, you still hold a belief in the supernatural. I have yet to see a materialist Christian. I do not see how it is possible to hold a supernatural belief such as Christianity and retain materialism. Buddhism can be worshipful of the outside plane, too, it is just not personified. That one is debatable as to being a religion. But visit a serious temple and you will see a religion of self-worship.
3. I struggle with this one often. But I do think the process of training very young children to not think critically is dangerous and can often lead to bad behaviour. Religion requires the denial of reality. It requires suspension of logic in order to accept its preposterous claims. Many people have trouble segmenting their thinking into places where it is ok to think logically and places where it is not. Hence hte greater possibility ot do the wrong thing.
2. I agree with this semantically, but in reality, it often proves to be different
1. This goes back to number 3. Teaching children (and adults) to deny their critical thinking, to accept impossible claims, very often leads to a degree of “crazy”. The people believing in the religions aren’t crazy, but the required beliefs of religions often are. While I easily recognise the “humanistic, non-literal and progressive religious traditions”, those are usually wrapped inside or around a core set of “crazy” beliefs. You can’t believe in the supernatural without appearing at least a little crazy to a materialist…
June 21st, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Almost all religion IS based on some form of supernaturalism, though some of it is cleverly veiled.
For example, even Karen Armstrong’s aphophatic theology is based on dualistic assumptions—that there’s something like a soul or mental essence that has powers that can only be supernatural. She thinks that mystics have a magical ability to divine Deep Truths beyond what mere rational minds can apprehend. She believes in magical ESP—that somehow mind is more than the action of matter, and that an irreducible mental essence (with an amazing faculty of “intellectus”) can bypass the need for sense data and very fallible processing of that information. She thinks that mystic sages have a pipeline to spiritual Deep Truth, because… well, minds can magically Just Do That.
Make no mistake, Armstrong and almost all religious people are talking about (alleged) truth—justified true beliefs—however ineffable. They think religion is more than just a way of living and a set of attitudes. It’s about belief and truth, at some basic level.
Like almost all people who think that they accept science and that their religion is compatible with science, Armstrong is wrong. Science pretty clearly shows that such religious “knowledge” is anything but—it’s not based on a transcendental essence of mind that can bypass the fallibility of the human brain, but on projection of extremely fallible evolved human intuitions about intelligent agency, purpose, Meaning, and so on.
Religion isn’t a Way of Knowing, as people like Armstrong would have it, but a way of guessing, and a systematically misleading one.
This isn’t just true of popular Western Theisms in the US, but of almost all religion everywhere in the world, even including almost all forms of Buddhism.
Scratch a religion, and you almost invariably find dualistic assumptions that are implausible in light of science. There is almost always an assumption that at least some minds can tap into some source of knowledge, however ineffable, that is quite implausible in light of modern science.
If you don’t find that, it’s not clear that what you’ve got is religion at all, as opposed to just a set of meditative or social practices. And in practice, such theologically austere meditative and social practices are generally assumed by most practitioners to be at least bit More than That; part of the attraction of such things for almost all practitioners is the idea that the Meaning they find is not just attitude adjustment and projection, but embodies essential Truth.
Armstrong is a classic example of this. Like a lot of New Agers and Eastern religion fans in the US, she thinks that there are Deep Truths known to mystics throughout the ages, which science is starting to catch up with and validate—e.g., she believes that quantum physics shows that ancient mystics tapped into a fundamental connection between mind and matter, and used it to divine Deep Truths fairly directly. Most quantum physicists and philosophers of science don’t think so, though, and for good reasons; that idea fell from favor decades ago among the actual experts, and is generally regarded as yet another example of all-too-appealing anthropocentric projection. Unfortunately, that confusion lives on in the popular imagination as an example of convergence of science and religion, validating religion.
I’m curious what is supposed to count as religion that is NOT supernatural. I have a difficult time finding it.
One candidate would be an austere kind of Deism, which is just a guess that some intelligent being created our universe. On the one hand, some such austere Deists don’t actually seem to be religious—they don’t think of such a creator being as something magical to worship, but as some kind of alien that might have created the universe. That’s not particularly supernaturalistic, but it doesn’t seem particularly religous. The “deists” who do think of such a being as a God worthy of worship or religious reverence typically do read dualistic assumptions into it—they believe in some kind of mind-over-matter such that it makes more sense to believe in a magical, irreducible mind that could will matter into existence, and don’t accept the apparent scientific fact that minds are necessarily contingent on matter.
Likewise, patheisms usually pan out similarly. If God is just everything that is, it generally doesn’t support religious attitudes. It’s an uninteresting definition of God. People who find Deep Meaning in the idea that God is Everything generally do so because of dualistic assumptions—the idea that some irreducibly mind-like essence is more fundamental than brute (impersonal, mindless, goalless) matter.
Given that, I’m curious what you think counts as religion that really isn’t supernaturalistic, and why you would think it counts.
In my experience, e.g., with people who identify as Unitarians, self-identification as “religious” is strongly correlated with belief in dualism. Many Unitarians participate in the social practices, but don’t think of themselves as really “religious” about it, and those Unitarians generally don’t believe there’s Something More in a dualistic sense. The ones who DO think of their Unitarianism as clearly “religious” are generally those who think there’s Something More that turns out to be something dualistic.
All that said, it’s just not clear what you mean when you talk about “non-supernaturalist” religion. There’s a lot of unexamined or unacknowledged dualism around, even among extreme theological liberals, and I’d call that supernaturalism.
How many “religious” people are really not supernaturalists in that basic sense? I’d guess almost none. I’d also say that that’s as good a line as any for distinguishing between actual religion and non-religion with religion-like practices. If you really take away ALL of the supernaturalism, including basic dualistic intuitions, it’s just not clear that what’s left is something you should call religion.
Counterexamples would be welcome and very interesting.
June 21st, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Uh oh – I smell another shit-storm coming! Detailed response on my blog in a bit…
June 21st, 2011 at 7:07 pm
I’m curious how you’re defining “religion.” There seem to be moments where you aren’t using religion the same way I would use it, and I wonder if there isn’t some unintentional equivocation going on. Knowing your working definition would make it easier to ponder what you say. It would also make it easier to understand whatever reply you give to Paul W. (and I hope you do reply, because he’s brought up some good points).
June 21st, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Paul W, I have a book called “what Jews believe” which says all the supernatural stuff in Judaism is just “the sacred myth of the Jewish people”–not true in the normal sense, but true in some secondary sense. In fact, this is how I’ve seen religion presented to kids in a Jewish “Sunday school”. There’s the historical/scientific time line, that tells about the facts out there. Then there’s the “sacred myth” time line–it’s y’know, some other kind of mythy thing. So–super-liberal Judaism might be a bonafide religion without supernaturalism. You could say that’s not a religion, but all signs are that it is.
June 21st, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Paul said:”Religion isn’t a Way of Knowing, as people like Armstrong would have it, but a way of guessing, and a systematically misleading one.”
I’d disagree slightly. Of course, all religions are false– there’s no way around this. Systematically misleading sounds accurate as well. But I disagree with the “guessing” part of your definition. I’d amend this to say that religion is a way of THINKING that you know. I’m reminded by Bart Ehrman’s talk at the AHA conference this year where he stated that Evangelical biblical scholars are among the class of people most committed to the truth. Sure they’re committed, they just happen to be wrong
—
Myth #1 is interesting– surely if we want to quantify how outlandish or crazy a religion is, we can do so. If Christianity is logically impossible, wouldn’t it make sense that Mormonism is at least slightly more incorrect as it adds to base Christian canon? That was my primary concern with Greta’s post on the subject.
The author’s take on myth #3 (religion causes bad behavior) is problematic. I would assert that virtually nobody is so naive to believe that RELIGION causes bad behavior– this strikes me as a bit of a straw man. What the new atheists actually say is that DOGMA causes bad behavior– irrationally following authority or putting faith in bad reasoning (or no reasoning at all) is what firebrands actually have issue with. Granted, it does sometimes look as if the confrontationalists are attacking the broader construct of religion (Hitchens’ subtitle ‘How Religion Poisons Everything’ being the primary offender) but reading their actual arguments make this point clear (and further, Hitch has said that he is completely fine with religion as long as it doesn’t harm anyone). Religion is the product where faith and dogma are the processes which corrupt and mislead. This is a very meaningful difference and it should be noted when examining the actual content of atheistic arguments.
Otherwise, I found the bulk of the article agreeable
June 21st, 2011 at 11:28 pm
How the heck do you even come to the claim that “atheists believe these things about religion”?
The claim that atheists believe any of this is a poor stereotype, unfounded, of atheists so say the least.
Let me add another stereotype:
6) Atheists were never believers, live away from a culture of believe, are blind and ignorant and so grow up completely insulated from religions.
I think that assumption covers roughly how most of these points can even be justified.
In other words this is a massive strawman again, and one that on all counts paints atheists as ignorant to then lecture them how to the reality really is!
Ouch. Not that I am surprised anymore.
Let me address the points just to illustrate:
5. Liberal and Moderate Religion Justifies Religious Extremism
Misunderstands what the criticism actually is. If a moderate believer defends a notion, even if in a friendly way, they make arguing against the extremist, who uses the same notion to the extreme harder. If the moderate or progressive in turn does not help to challenge what is going on then indeed they don’t justify but maintain what is extreme here, without engaging in the extremism themselves.
Not that there is any evidence that all or even the majority of atheists even think about these issues at all. Very likely they don’t.
4. Religion Requires a Belief in a Supernatural God
Oh yeez. Recent studies have shown that atheists are more literate about religion than the religious. So how is it possible that atheists don’t know that buddhists can be atheists for example? Well in reality the above is just a stereotype and one that if taken seriously wouldn’t make the religious look any better. It also forgets that many atheists were religious, or grew up in a culture surrounded by religious. We know what others know.
3. Religion Causes Bad Behavior
I think the Hitchens quote covers it. If Hitchens, really on the anti-theist side of the spectrum understands this to be too naive, how do you think the bulk of us, who are not as out there with anti-theism think about this? No. This one is just a stereotype about atheists. They think badly about religion and don’t grasp basic notions about people action not abstract constructs. But atheists also understand that belief structures inform behavior and that some behavior is hard to explain without a specific belief structure in place.
So the request for is about behavior and a chance in the causes for behavior. Even Sam Harris says he is not worried about Jainist fundamentalists. It’s the behavior and the justification that makes him say that.
But any belief system has that property, and most atheists understand that… but that wouldn’t fit the stereotype of the “religion-hating atheist”.
2. Atheists are Anti-Religious
Rehash of 3. Just restating the stereotype.
1. All Religions are the Same and are “Equally Crazy”
A rehash of 5. and 4. with some extra supposed naivete mixed in. “equally crazy”? How many atheists claim that? “All religions are the same”?
Yep just another stereotype.
Basically it’s the worst form of condescention, to set up what supposedly “many” of a group belief, make it ignorant and foolish and then lecture that group as to how not to be ignorant and foolish. Hmm yeah. Serves to purposes: Actually depict them as bad, and depict you as better!
One really shouldn’t be doing this to others though.
I would suggest doing this properly. Go talk to atheists, actually ask them about their attitudes, come up with some sensibly fair ethnography and per chance there is an actual discussion to be had about what atheists to think about religions and why.
I predict that the picture that emerges is very different from what is painted here, so one can but wonder. Why paint atheists like this?
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:43 am
Perfectly adequate rebuttals above, but it’s notable to me that when there are ugly stereotypes to be propounded about atheists, the one atheist we can clearly count on to do the job is Chris Stedman. Stedman: the thinking atheophobe’s atheist.
When “dialogue,” as Stedman uses it, means “ignorant and fallacious attacks on a despised minority,” why should it be surprising that some of us have no interest in Stedman-style “dialogue”?
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Jean,
I read “What Jews Believe,” years ago, but I don’t remember it very well—I’m not sure what was in it and what I got from other sources.
Either way, when people talk about sacred stuff not being true in the plain sense, but being “true in some secondary sense,” I think there’s something wrong. It’s often used as a dodge to allow people to believe the kind of stuff Karen Armstrong pushes.
I’ve talked to a number of super-liberal ministers and rabbis about this sort of thing, and in every case it turns out that most people in their congregations believe more of the supernatural stuff than they themselves do. The majorities in their congregations are at least dualists who believe in a Higher Power or something, even if they do not believe in a personal God.
My impression is that super-liberal religion that’s actually consistent with atheism, cognitive science and philosophical materialism is very nearly nonexistent, even in very liberal congregations in liberal denominations. To the extent that it exists at all, it mainly exists among the clergy themselves, who are not going to pointedly challenge basic dualistic intuitions among their congregants, or draw out the implications. (E.g., how on earth would spiritual insight work if you don’t have a dualistic soul?) They may say that the Bible stories are mostly myths, and need to be interpreted in humanistic ways to find meaning in them, but they’re not about to say that Karen Armstrong is wrong too, and that religion isn’t a Way of Knowing in the sense she makes it out to be. If they do go so far as to explicitly deny dualism, they’re not going to draw out the very serious implications of that.
My impression is also that once people really abandon dualism and come to grips with the implications, they usually lose interest in religious practice, too. It’s not clear to me that super-liberal religion is a stable thing, and I’d guess it’s often a waystation on the way out of religion entirely, except as a matter of tribal identity.
Super-liberal Judaism is interesting in regard to tribal identity, as opposed to religion. For example, a Jewish atheist philosopher friend of mine sends his kids to Hebrew school because he wants them to grow up (non-believing) Jews. A large part of that is at he doesn’t want them (or their kids) to just assimilate into majority Christian US culture. He partly wants to inoculate them with a dead mind virus partly to protect them against a live one—it’s easier to be an atheist Jew among Jews than an atheist nothing among Christians. (I think that’s slowly changing.)
I’ve heard similar sentiments from a number of other Jews, and it makes me wonder. If super-liberal Judaism is an unusually good example of “religion” without bogus beliefs (dualism, etc.), how much is that because it’s a reaction against the mainstream culture? If non-belief became common and not widely despised, such that mainstream majority religion was not the same kind of threat, what would happen?
If you look at largely irreligious countries like Denmark and Sweden, you see a whole lot of people who maintain a nominal “Christian” identity, but don’t practice religion, or think about it much. You don’t see a lot of people ditching religious beliefs but continuing to seriously practice religion, they typically only practice religion in a token way. By and large, people who lose the beliefs stop going to church, and stop thinking about religion much at all.
I have to wonder if the same thing would happen to super-liberal Judaism in the US if there wasn’t a mainstream, seriously believing Christian culture to react against. I also have to wonder if it doesn’t happen to a considerable extent anyway—as I understand it, the large majority of US Jews don’t seriously practice Judaism, if they practice it at all, though many maintain the tribal affiliation.
Statistically, Jews view their own religious tradition very favorably, while simultaneously being very weakly religious observant. (According to Putnam and Campbell; among their major religious traditions, only Mormons view their own group more favorably, and Mormons are at the opposite end of the observance scale.)
That suggests to me that super-liberal Judaism is a tough sell, except as mostly a tribal identity thing. It’s hard enough to get Jews who do believe in dualism and a personal God or Higher Power to actually practice the religion much. I suspect that what limited appeal super-liberal Judaism does have would diminish if there wasn’t so much mainstream Christian dumbassery to react against.
I could be wrong, and it would be interesting to see some good data on what’s going on—e.g., on how many non-dualist practicing Jews not only identify as Jews but think of themselves as really “religious,” and in what sense(s).
There’s a serious demarcation problem here. It’s not clear to me what distinguishes nonbelieving but practicing Jews as actually “religious” in a way that excludes other things we don’t normally call “religions”—subcultural groups with an associated ethos that people choose to immerse themselves in and identify strongly with, e.g., being a committed Left/Green or a Deadhead or a Burner (i.e., people identified with the Burning Man subculture).
I’m not joking or intending to demean anyone by those comparisons. I know people who are thoroughly involved in various subcultures and identify strongly with their peculiar ethos and “form of life,” and it is really not clear to me how being a practicing but nonbelieving Jew is importantly different in a “religious” way, if you ditch the distinctively religious beliefs.
What makes super-liberal Judaism a “religion,” exactly, as opposed to a subculture or tribal group with an ethos, and which just maintains a traditional “religious” label without actually being “religious.” (Whatever that should mean.)
It seems to me that for most people, the seeming rightness of the “religion” label suggests that there is something crucial and peculiarly special that is being maintained from traditional religion, which is not present in other forms of life that people strongly participate in and identify with—or perhaps those forms of life are “religious” too.
Certainly there are Left/Greens and Deadheads and Burners for whom those things *are* their “religion” in some significant sense, and some will earnestly say so. Many have fuzzy New Age-ish beliefs and think that their experiences in those milieus are literally “spiritual” in the sense of getting in touch with some dualistic essence(s) of creativity/love/community or a Higher Power. They really do think of themselves as experiencing The Divine in a kind of magical way by participating in the social and ritualistic practices of those communities.
Who’s to say they’re wrong? Not me. I tend to think they’re right—to the extent that they think they’re experiencing supernaturalistic magic, making a big deal out of it, and identifying with it, they are clearly being religious about it.
That actually strikes me as more clearly religious than a super-liberal Judaism that really doesn’t involve any dualistic beliefs, and is just a form of life with an ethos.
Maybe there’s a better line to draw between religion and non-religion, but I don’t have any idea what it would be.
BTW, Greta Christina wrote an interesting piece on what super-liberal religion would look like, if actually believing distinctively religious things was not criterial, that the ethos identified with was crucial, and that the entertaining and morally instructive stories were fictional, but morally valuable nonetheless.
It’d look like hardcore Star Trek fandom, with people revisiting the same moralistic and heroic stories over and over, finding meaning in them, and reveling in a sense of community, a shared ethos, and so on.
That may seem like an unfair comparison and a cheap shot, but why? What exactly IS the difference that makes super-liberal Judaism a “religious” thing, but seriously identifying and practicing as Trekkie NOT a “religious” thing?
(Seriously, there are Trekkies who really think being a Trekkie is a very good thing, and that the world would be a better place if more people took Star Trek very seriously, absorbed Star Trek values, and lived up to Star Trek ideals. IMO, they may well be right—you can do a lot worse than Star Trek ideology, and most popular religions do.)
To me, neither seems as distinctively “religious” as the kind of vaguely New Agey Left/Green, Deadhead or Burner “tribes” I’ve come across. Without a claim to a transcendent source of knowledge, or an experience of the supernatural, what does make a religion a religion?
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Paul, I might have agreed with you that just the clergy go in for the fancy “true in some secondary sense” talk, but then I went to this Sunday school class, back when I had my kids at a religious school, and they were rebelling against it. I was trying to figure out what it was they didn’t like. The teacher (just a layman) had these two time lines on the board, and the kids were being taught to take them both seriously. This was NOMA in action! Yes to the big bang and dinosaurs, but yes also to creation in 6 days, etc. It wasn’t explained very clearly, but one time line was plain old truth, and the other was sacred truth—or something. I’m not sure how many people (besides rabbis and teachers) really think like that—actually, I’d love to know.
As to why I was there, and why atheist Jews like me want Jewish education for their kids, and whether it’s any different from being a Trekkie… I think inoculation is part of it. I want my kids to feel Jewish partly so they won’t be tempted to be Christian. Living in Dallas it seems like a high risk! But it’s much more—and this is why the Trekkie thing is wrong (though amusing). I think a huge factor is honoring the memory of the people who died in the Holocaust and were persecuted through the centuries. I think religion is at a minimum about things we take very seriously, if not necessarily about the supernatural. It’s about values, being “a people,” a way of life, all that stuff.
Full disclosure: my kids bailed out of religious school because they thought people talking to deities on mountain tops just couldn’t be true, and they couldn’t get into the idea of “wonderful stories that unite us as a people” (my spin).
About dualism– Is it really dualistic if you think certain people have extraordinary “ways of knowing”? Not in the sense of substance dualism, but okay, maybe in a different sense. This also pertains to rebirth. Buddhists don’t have to be substance dualists, but they do have some sort of dualistic thing going when they suppose that a person can be reborn in another body. Perhaps it’s a dualism of processes, not entities, in both cases.
June 26th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
“[W]e must honestly examine the myths and misunderstandings of both positions. Genuine dialogue between the religious and non-religious is possible.”
Why not actually do this BEFORE writing an article? What we’ve been given is a list of myths Be likes to believe about atheists that could have been avoided had he really dialogued with some.
For example, myths 5, 3 and 1 are misunderstandings or distortions of the real positions atheists hold. Because of this, Be’s debunking misses its mark. Others have already pointed this out in detail, here and elsewhere.
Myths 4 and 2 are semantics. Merely reminding us of certain people’s existence isn’t going to shock us into changing anything. We all know that the people Be is talking about exist, only we use slightly different terminology. Why should we use his terms rather than ours? And does difference at this level really amount to myth?
June 26th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Not to nitpick, but since everyone else has raised most of my own objections, I’ll just note one thing:
“However, if you open any “Religion 101″ textbook you will find a variety of traditions that don’t require belief in any god, miracles or supernatural entities including Taoism, Jainism, Confucianism and Buddhism.”
Just because these religions aren’t necessarily theistic doesn’t mean they are exempt from criticism of their, in fact, supernatural claims. All four of the example religions include belief in some sort of a soul and heaven, both of which I would consider to be beliefs which cause undue stress upon those concerned with their after-death experience. Although, of course, those religions are typically less violent and of less concern by comparison to contemporary extremism in other areas, and I can certainly befriend people who espouse these beliefs, that doesn’t mean I am afraid to, or cannot, confront them.
“It would be much harder to attack religion as it would mean a more sophisticated and refined critique, one that would be more difficult to arouse the passions of dogmatic religion haters.”
I’m sorry if some of us are so mentally incapable of this “sophisticated and refined critique” that we resort to stereotypes regarding the supernatural and dogmatic elements of religious belief. Stereotypes are awful. Especially ones towards an entire group of people. Perhaps we should avoid them, stereotypes like “many atheists are dogmatic religion haters”.
June 27th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Hi Chris. Thanks for this article. As a Christian who has long suspected that there *must* be atheists like you out there, I have been thrilled to discover you and your work. Keep it up.
P.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:27 am
Will the author respond to the criticisms here, I wonder? I think they are well-made and justified in this instance, and deserve to be answered.
January 14th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Interesting.
You make some decent points… though I’ve never met a unitarian who didn’t believe in God.
I suppose I consider myself an atheist, and I do have a prejudice – not necessarily against those who believe in God – but definitely against those who live and make decisions based on religious dogma.
You are right – not all religions are equally crazy. The flip side is that not all atheists are equally crazy. There are religious fundamentalists. There are atheist fundamentalists. We’re all crazy to some degree and in our own special ways.
But recognize that the vilification of non-believers by believers does not advice the argument that you need god to be good. And may the good Christopher Hitchens rest in peace – whatever that means.