COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET…
October 24th, 2005
At our September Socrates Cafe, we discussed the question: Is it wise for Atheists to stay in the closet? Cenk Uyger is giving us a real-world answer to that question at the The Huffington Post. The story has already — as of 24 October at 0800 — racked up more than 260 comments. Uygur ledes with:
We live in a twisted world, where right is wrong and wrong reigns supreme. It is a chilling fact that most of the world’s leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality. They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true. We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies. These men are called Christians, Muslims and Jews.
Since the Englightenment the argument has run something like this: Yes, here are fanatics and fundamentalists who committ evil in the name of their god, but that reality should not be allowed to deny the solace of faith to those who do not seek to deny others their freedoms and faiths.
Do you think that argument still holds true, or, as Sam Harris argues in The End Of Faith, is it time to recognize that all faith systems are based on superstition and are inherently damaging to the future of humanity?
My Soundtrack: Missing Pieces by Voxtrot on WOXY.
[...] Enlightment, and Atheism Jeff Hess has an interesting post on his blog this morning. In havecoffeewillwrite.com » COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET… he poses the following question: Since the Engligh [...]
Shalom Chris,
Thanks for stopping in.
I wish now I’d had the white chili. The fried chicken didn’t quite set right with me.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Hey Jeff…
Oh, just put me on the side of the Enlightenment–although I have a problem with your phrasing the evils of fanatics as “the reality” as if it is the *only* reality…
As a student of religion, I tend to find atheists arguments against religion to be simplistic and deny the historic facts that there has always been a religion of some kind in every civilization, and that it’s usually been a religious zeitgeist spurring on change–esp. social changes in this country. Where would organized labor be without social conscious catholics like Dorothy Day? Where would the civil rights movement be without mainline protestants (some of whom put their white butts on the line, too–who I’ve known personally.) And where would Tibetan Buddhist culture be without the Dalai Lama? And, if it wasn’t for some enlightened Muslims during something called the Dark Ages, we wouldn’t know a thing about Plato and Aristotle…
Further, there wouldn’t be much in the way of art or of music if there was no sense of something beyond our earthly existence. Bach might not have been Bach, there wouldn’t be the Parthenon nor Notre Dame, and who knows about Bernini and Michaelangelo…
We, now, live in a country where there is much talk about religion, but few citizens truly know anything about it. Few Americans understand the basic tenets of their childhood religion, let alone the basics of other non-european religions. The strange populist low-church protestantism that is thriving today is evidence of that ignorance (as much as an ignorance of world history)… it is also evidence of a need people have to believe in something that tells them they are superior to others. It is not religion, or myth, as much as it is a dogma that appeals to a particular American capitalist greed factor and couched in pop culture terms thus appealing to the least common denominator. It is savvy marketing of a dogma.
A true study or religion–conducted in a grown-up, out of sunday school atmosphere– can give one an entirely different perspective of religion. The enlighend, knowledgeable perspective knows the difference betwen blind belief in dogma and a reasoned faith, that understands the importance of belief in one’s personal life, as well as how belief systems have undergird most world cultures throughout time.
:-)
Tish
I think that we should withdraw the tax-exempt status of all religious organizations. Too many are becoming a political machine. Let the worshippers support their beliefs.
Shalom Daniella,
I don’t think we need to abolish the tax break, the 501(c)(3) status does make sense, but we do need to tighten enforcement of the existing prohibitions and prosecute those who break the law.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Shalom Tish,
One of the problems arises, I think, when human attempt to impose the rational world on the emotional. For instance, take the example of Social Darwinism. Those in power attempt to justify their power by stating that they must be naturally entitled to that power because they have it. The belief is false because it relies on a misunderstanding of Darwin’s Natural Selection.
The same fallacy arises when we consider Reality. There is only one Reality. And that is the reality defined as that which does not go away when we ignore it.
More seriously, Reality is made up of things that are true regardless of the observer. Gravity doesn’t care who is watching.
Then there is reality, that which is defined by the observer; the paradigm within which the observer lives. Two people may observe an event — say a fight between two adults — and have vastly differing opinions about what really happened.
In this case there are four realities and one Reality. The views of the two observers and the two participants make up the realities. The Reality consists of what occurred, but is nearly impossible to discern because it involves a long chain of influences on the thoughts and actions of the two participants. Humanity will someday be able to objectively catalog those influences and state the Reality. But for now we must make do with the myriad realities and muddle through a best-understanding.
My personal understanding of Spirituality — as opposed to Religion — is our emotional response to our reality. That humans with a less-developed understanding of the natural world developed emotional responses to events such as natural disasters, disease, tragedy and coincidence seems to me to be understandable but not a reason to perpetuate those responses when we can clearly demonstrate them not to be true.
What I most strongly advocate for is that humanity does not need a higher power to be behave well. We are, I believe, capable of good acts on our own. As one of my heroes, Carl Sagan once wrote:
Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. when we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.
B’shalom,
Jeff