Just yesterday I found myself immensely frustrated. I was engaged in a discussion with a small number of others, covering two broad topics. I shall cover only the first in this writing.
It was a short debate about atheism, with my anonymous nemesis claiming that atheists are unfairly persecuted in politics (allegedly they are widely accused of being amoral), despite the fact that they are not bound by the prejudices they believe religion advocates. I replied to the effect that I would not vote for an atheist candidate as I believe that someone who has once-and-for-all walled off all possibility of an instance, in this case the existence of a higher being, is a fool. If a man has rejected all possibility of the existence of God, then in what other areas has he dug his trenches? It is not so much a head-in-the-sand mentality as a line-in-the-sand mentality, a line that has been smugly drawn by a mortal being who believes he has accumulated enough wisdom to flatly deny the fantastic. This, for me, raises grave concerns over that man's inductional ability. I was swiftly rebuked, told that atheists do not outright reject the existence of God (forgive me for taking the word at its most vulgar!) and merely consider it unlikely. I was scolded for believing the hateful propaganda peddled by the anti-atheist lobby, who dare suggest that atheists reject the existence of a supreme being!
At this point I politely removed myself from the subject, keeping my worries to myself. If these individuals are so splutteringly indignant at the terms today's society has so cruelly attached to their chosen signifier, then why do they choose to associate themselves with it? Their beliefs seem to have crept away from what the apparent face-value definition of 'atheism' would be, and what our language has generally taken atheism to mean - a rejection of the existence of a god or other supernatural being. Why, then, do they stick with it before inevitably complaining about the stigma with which they are associated? Is it a matter of pride, a bitter and familiar pleasure in being able to call oneself an atheist, that makes them so unwilling to abandon the term in favour of something more refined?
I abandoned the conversation out of frustration, frustration at debating with an opponent who cannot see that language is a societal construct, that - whether he likes it or not - a word may take on an infinite number of meanings, so long as those meanings are accepted and used in general discourse. Instead of abandoning his sinking ship, dragged under by that darkest Charybdis of public opinion, he attempts to repaint it as it disappears below the waves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you are taking the term to mean more that it does or should. I will not argue that a man's faith does not manifest itself in his life or character. Personally, I think atheism is a sort of mental allergy (for lack of a better term) to religion, but that is beside the point.
Denying the existence of God, in whatever shape or form, is like any other opinion - it may be firm or uncertain, it may also change, but it is in no way infallible.
I would not consider anyone who is utterly certain of an opinion that is not and cannot be based on facts, an intelligent, open-minded human being. That is, by the by, what is so obnoxious about deeply religious people.
Secondly, just as the belief in God takes different forms with different people, so does its denial. It is not just to group all atheists together and call them amoral or inferior. Most true atheists would tell you that it is not the objective factual existence of a higher power that they deny, just its subjective existence as far as they are concerned. Perhaps the debate should not be about whether god exists or not, but about whether we believe in him or not.
My main objection to his argument was not that he had specific beliefs, but how he insisted on:
a) consciously labelling himself as an atheist
b) proceeding to complain that atheists suffer due to misconceptions as to their beliefs
Why does he not break away from it, define a new identity for himself, a new term for his own beliefs that is untainted?
Regarding your last point: that is of course the debate, for god only exists through your belief in him. To try and prove the existence of a god in any other way it utterly foolish, and this is why those who self-identify as atheists are missing the point.
I would not go as far as saying all atheists miss the point and I would like to point out that, though you and I nderstand that the debate is about belief, there is vast majority out there that is is still carrying on, arguing about facts and evidence and not realizing that it cannot (at least for the time being) be proved at all.
Secondly, it seems to me that you are just as commited to your opinion as the atheist you complain about. I am sure that a and b apply to anyone who holds an unpopular opinion and is unwilling to draw back. Would you expect that after a conversation with you (or anyone else, for that matter) he would suddenly say that youare right and cease calling himself an atheist?
Alina mentions the idea that you can't prove the issue of God's existence with facts, but the problem is that facts aren't as solid as popular opinion makes them seem. Facts are no more solid than anything else -- see Hume, for instance. We just tend to agree with them more because they work in our lives.
I like your point about belief in God and denial of God taking different forms
Post a Comment