Atheist Revolution

The "Real Christian" Smackdown: Liberals vs. Fundamentalists

2009-08-04T07:43:00.000-05:00

Image by wallyg via Flickr

I suspect that any atheist who has brought up examples of Christian hypocrisy during interactions with Christians has heard some version of the "not a real Christian" claim. The idea is quite simple: "real Christians" do not do bad things and so anyone who does bad things is de facto not a "real Christian." The Christian making such a claim is willing to ignore the entire body of evidence supporting the perpetrator's Christianity prior to the bad act and dismiss it all because "real Christians" do not do whatever the perpetrator did. But there is another even more important way in which it is meaningful to discuss who is and is not a real Christian. There may even be a role for atheists can play in such a discussion.

If we view Christian belief along a continuum with liberal Christians on one end and fundamentalist Christians on the other, we typically see that each pole accuses the other of not being genuine Christians. Liberal Christians love to point out that the fundamentalist beliefs emphasize a wrathful Old Testament god and miss the compassionate character of Jesus. They criticize the fundamentalists for refusing to allow their religion to evolve with the times.

On the other hand, fundamentalist Christians are equally fond of criticizing the "cafeteria Christianity" practiced by liberal Christians. They accuse the liberals of simply omitting whatever parts of their bible suit them and failing to honor the divinely inspired word of their god.

Indeed, the tension between these two camps focuses on who has the right to regard oneself as a "real Christian." Each side views the other side as missing the point of Christianity and as not being true to the "holy" spirit.

I'd like to suggest that the part best played by atheists in this discussion is one of facilitator and critic. Simply put, we can encourage both sides to think. We can ask the liberal Christians how they justify ignoring the many parts of their bible with which they disagree, and we can ask the fundamentalists to consider the implications of a literal reading of the Christian bible in our modern world. We can ask the fundamentalist Christians why their god seems so angry and punitive when Jesus allegedly spoke of forgiveness, and we can ask the liberals why something "holy" seems to require so much interpretation.

At this point, you may be asking yourself why atheists should even care about this debate within Christianity? In my opinion, we should care because we live in a predominately Christian culture in which the nature of this debate has implications for us. The future of Christianity is relevant to us even as many of us hope to see a continued decline in its potency.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

A Christian Response to Celebrity Deaths

2009-07-07T13:05:00.000-05:00

Image by Bearman2007 via Flickr

I do not spend as much time as I might like reading Christian blogs. I know what you're thinking, but some really fascinating stuff can be found on some of them from time-to-time. I was curious how Christians were reacting to the recent celebrity deaths, and I ran across an interesting post on the subject at DanaPellerin.com. The post was written in late June, so it only mentions Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. In fact, it was written on the day these two died.

Mr. Pellerin comments on how quickly public interest in celebrity deaths turns into anger over how much media coverage is devoted to such deaths. He's absolutely right. I experienced this personally as what started as mild curiosity rapidly turned into frustration and disgust with the media for essentially making these deaths (especially that of Michael Jackson) the only news story for several days. It wasn't that I suddenly turned into a Michael Jackson hater or anything; it was just that the nonstop coverage got old quickly when it came at the expense of every other story.

One part of Mr. Pellerin's post that I found extremely interesting was how surprised he seemed to encounter similar reactions from his fellow Christians.

As I was following the data stream out there on the intertubes, I noticed several rude comments from strangers, but more surprising, from some Christian friends, that implied that following such stories is a waste of time and we shouldn’t be making a big deal about them.

Why would he expect that other Christians would regard such stories as not being newsworthy? His Christian friends were absolutely right to point out that the excessive coverage these stories received was a waste and that other more important news was being neglected. How would the religious beliefs of his friends be expected to change this?

One person started throwing out stats on AIDS deaths as if dying from AIDS is somehow more noble than dying in other ways... One conversation regarding a child dying in a car accident today elicited a response from another who said “i’m glad that you have something worthwhile to pray about now, not Michael Jackson”. Wow. The callousness of these statements, especially those from Christians, amazes me.

Aside from the flawed assumption that being a Christian somehow prevents callousness, Mr. Pellerin seems to be misunderstanding what his friends are likely saying. It seems to me that the message they are trying to impart is simply that people die in unfortunate circumstances every day and are thoroughly ignored by the media. This is a valid point and one which those of us concerned with social justice are often making.

Here’s the deal; Yeah our culture makes a big deal about celebrities. And that’s wrong. It’s wrong to put people on a pedestal and worship them for simply making use of the gifts only God has allowed them to use. But I don’t think it’s wrong to mourn their deaths.

Wrong to make a big deal about celebrities? That sounds a bit simplistic for my tastes, but if we can change "wrong" to something like "inappropriate" or "detrimental to improving the conditions of others," I'll agree. I'll also agree with Mr. Pellerin that worship of other people, regardless of who they are, is absurd. Of course, I'd say the same about worship of mythical creatures like gods, angels, and the like.

But I don't think anyone is saying that it is wrong to mourn the loss of others. At least, I have not heard such a sentiment expressed by atheists or Christians. If Michael Jackson meant a great deal to someone (for whatever reason), it makes sense for such a person to mourn his passing. I have a hard time believing that any of Mr. Pellerin's associates would feel differently.

No, what I expect his colleagues are trying to point out to him is that it bothers them to see the media lavish attention on someone solely because of celebrity while ignoring those who die every day and mean the world to those they have left behind. Perhaps they worry that the level of adulation being heaped on Jackson has started to sound like worship. Then again, they may simply be reacting to a situation that seems unfair.

As Mr. Pellerin suggests, high profile deaths should remind us of our own mortality. But where he insists that we should also be reminded of "our need for a savior," I'd say that what we really need reminding of is our own humanity.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Can Atheists Participate in Interfaith Dialogue?

2009-07-02T05:35:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

In a comment on one of my posts on atheist-theist dialogue, J. R. Miller directed me to a related post on his blog, More Than Cake. After noting that there is a conflict within Christianity as to whether interfaith dialogue "has led some Christians to value appeasement over proclamation of the Gospel," Miller provides a list of eight conditions which he feels would be helpful in promoting effective dialogue.

I know that many of you will be tempted to immediately discount the idea of atheists participating in interfaith dialogue because you recognize that atheism does not involve any sort of faith. Fair enough. Still, I find Miller's conditions worth a look. Perhaps they have implications for productive atheist-theist dialogue. I wonder how our conditions would compare if we were to draft a similar list?

I also realize that it is difficult to get past some of Miller's assertions. Right off the bat, he presents us with this gem:

We cannot escape the necessity of our age to engage the culture with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This takes me back to my thoughts on the topic of proselytizing as compulsion. But I do find myself agreeing with at least some of his conditions.

Condition #1. Deal with the past, but don’t hold individuals responsible for it

If one is attempting to engage in meaningful dialogue with Christians, I see how bringing up references to the Crusades isn't likely to be helpful. Of course, Christians trying to claim that their religion has been good for the world may need reminding that this claim is not without great controversy.

Condition #2. Express agendas with honesty

I really like this one. Dialogue does indeed work better when agendas can either be set aside or at least brought out in the open. Unfortunately, Miller does not appear to care much for the idea of setting agendas aside.

My agenda is to share the salvation hope that comes only through the death and resurrection power of the Messiah–Jesus. This, for me, is the context for interfaith dialogue.

I don't know about you, but this is likely a deal breaker for me. Miller seems to be saying that he is either unable or unwilling to set this aside. I'm not sure how atheist-theist dialogue can proceed from this point.

But what about the atheist agenda? Well, there really isn't one, at least not one so organized or commonly accepted as Miller's. Some atheists simply want to be left alone (i.e., they don't want to hear about the "Messiah-Jesus"), others primarily want to secure atheist rights, and others work toward the gradual decline of religion's power. We're all over the place! If those of us open to the possibility of atheist-theist dialogue share a common agenda, my guess is that it would involve things like encouraging rational thought, presenting an alternative to belief in the supernatural, and attempts to demonstrate the error behind many atheist stereotypes.

We encounter a big stumbling point in Miller's explanation of Condition #5:

As a Christian, I believe in truth. I believe we can know truth. And I believe the truth is found in the person of Jesus Christ who lived, died, and rose from the dead 2000 years ago. BUT, knowing the Truth that is Jesus Christ, does not mean I have all the answers to every question of life.

This feels like a door being closed on the possibility of meaningful dialogue. I'm not sure where to go with this one. There is no evidence for anything close to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. This is a faith-based claim, and we know that faith is not a valid way of acquiring or verifying knowledge. Belief does not equal truth.

What do you think? What would atheist conditions look like, and is there any point to engaging in dialogue with someone who held onto Miller's conditions?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What Do Atheists Think of Christians?

2009-06-05T05:27:00.000-05:00

Image by Martin_Heigan via Flickr

Anybody who tells you that they truly do not care what anyone else thinks of them is either a liar or operating on an entirely different plane from most of humanity. Maybe that is too strong, but you get the idea. Most of us care, perhaps even too much, what at least someone may think of us. It is normal to be curious about such things. It seems that we atheists rarely have to wonder what some Christians think of us because we are often being told exactly what they think of us. But how about Christians? It is only natural that some might wonder what we think of them.

My church says that all atheists think Christians are stupid, and that they hate us all. Is that true?

I make no claim to speak for all atheists, but I will provide my response to this question below and let my readers (most of whom are atheists) add as they see fit in the comments.

What Do I Think of Christians?

For starters, it is difficult to answer such a question because I recognize that Christians are a diverse group and that there is little I can say which would accurately apply to all of them. Under this broad heading of "Christian," one can find everything from liberals who read their bibles as loose metaphor and attempt to model themselves after the positive deeds attributed to Jesus to bible-thumping extremists who seek to overthrow our secular democracy and replace it with precisely the sort of Christian theocracy which America's founders took such great pains to avoid.

In many respects, I have more in common with some progressive Christians than I do with many conservative atheists. In fact, the vast majority of my friends are Christians. It would be easy to indicate how I feel about them - I like them very much, but that is not the question.

To get at what the individual asking this question is after, I almost have to construct an artificial sort of Christian, one who has only those characteristics shared by all Christians. This raises a significant problem because each time I think I am close to such a construction, a Christian or two drops by to shoot it down. From what they have told me, not all Christians believe in a personal god intervening in human affairs. Not all believe in the divinity of Jesus. And on and on. I suppose I should conclude that the question is unanswerable because Christians refuse to specify the essential features of Christianity. Of course, that strikes me as a bit of a cop out and probably not what the questioner is after.

Let me try this: What do I think of someone who believes that supernatural entities (e.g., gods, demons, angels, etc.) exist and have some role in human affairs? I think they are wrong. Specifically, I think they are making a mistake by believing rather extraordinary things without sufficient evidence. By definition, this makes such beliefs irrational. The individuals who hold such beliefs may be quite intelligent, but these specific beliefs are not rational. Moreover, starting with a set of beliefs without sufficient evidence (i.e., faith) and then imbibing it with a moral quality so that those who share it are "good" and those who do not are "evil" is very dangerous. That is, this is not merely irrational belief but the sort of irrational belief which can have a seriously destructive impact on humanity.

Do I think that all Christians are stupid? Of course not! Many are far more intelligent than I will ever be. Do I hate all Christians? Of course not! I've already explained that nearly all of my close friends are Christian. The same is true for my family. Even in the abstract, it makes no sense to say that I hate anyone I've never met.

I find it unfortunate that a church would spread such lies. Then again, it has been my experience that some Christian churches are convinced that this is the only way they are going to be able to retain members. Perhaps they realize that Christians who meet happy, well-adjusted atheists may realize that a life free from superstition is not only possible but can be quite meaningful.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Have I Been Wrong About Atheist-Theist Dialogue?

2009-03-01T07:39:00.002-06:00

Image by danny.hammontree via Flickr

We all make a number of assumptions about the world in which we live. Some are fairly explicit and form the framework of our various worldviews. Others are implicit and may influence us outside of our conscious awareness. When we fall into overly rigid or inflexible patterns of thought and behavior, these implicit assumptions are often to blame. One of my implicit assumptions has recently come to light, and I am starting to wonder if it has been leading me in some wrong directions. In this post, I will reveal it, highlight its relevance to my own atheist worldview, and invite comment. If I've been in error on this one, I really want to know about it.

In a nutshell, my assumption is that more dialogue between disagreeing parties is nearly always preferable to less. I realize that disagreeing parties will not always come together in agreement, and I certainly realize that dialogue cannot solve all problems. However, I find myself clinging to the idea that more discussion is better than less.

It is this assumption which leads me to write posts encouraging atheist-theist dialogue and identifying obstacles to such dialogue. Even if I recognize that such dialogue will change few minds about the theistic claim itself (i.e., that some sort of god or gods exist), I am convinced that greater dialogue is beneficial to both sides and will ultimately reduce conflict.

I suppose this assumption was ingrained in me during childhood. For years, I was not even aware of it. There have been periods in my life where it got me in trouble, as I often found myself trying to make peace by encouraging opponents to come together and talk. Obviously, it does not always work.

Still, I cling to the idea that parties coming together to discuss their differences is nearly always preferable to the alternative. I am honestly not sure why I am starting to question this now. It is difficult to question what has long been an implicit assumption, but I feel that I must do so.

I suppose my questions to you (and to myself) are along the following lines?

Are there circumstances where increased dialogue is counterproductive, and if so, what would be some examples of such circumstances?
Do you think that atheist-theist dialogue is something to encourage?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tale of a Good Christian

2009-02-11T05:16:00.000-06:00

Image by David Maddison via Flickr

I attended a Christian college not because I was Christian at the time (I was far more public about my atheism then as compared to now) but because the school had a great reputation in the region. I encountered my share of religiously-motivated bigotry, certainly more than I would have at one of the state universities in the area, but this ended up being good preparation for life in Mississippi. In fact, there is not much I would change about the experience. It wasn't always pleasant, but it helped to make me who I am today. In this post, I'd like to tell you about a particularly outstanding Christian professor who I admired and respected a great deal. If nothing else, this may serve as a reminder that even devout Christians can be wonderful teachers and good people.

The professor in question had his appointment in the departments of philosophy and held degrees in both religion and philosophy. The course I took with him was an upper-level philosophy course, the philosophy of religion. I ended up minoring in philosophy after being unable to figure out what I would do with a philosophy major.

I went into the course as a fairly rabid anti-theist with a chip on my shoulder. I suppose I expected to be penalized for expressing what I really thought about religion. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Well, that's not entirely accurate. You see, I did take plenty of shit from the other students, nearly all of whom were Christians. But the professor was nothing but accepting, encouraging, and genuinely helpful.

As we studied the various arguments for and against the existence of gods, focusing on classic and contemporary Christian apologists, the professor was clear about what he believed but equally clear that we were to arrive at our own conclusions. He never preached or attempted to impose his beliefs. Students were expected to wrestle with the material and critically evaluate it.

In hindsight, this was probably my favorite class from my time in college. It was quite difficult, both intellectually and emotionally, because it forced us to fully engage the material. I saw more than a couple Christian students break down and cry in class when one of their cherished arguments was effectively demolished. I remained an atheist but certainly became more thoughtful and mature about my atheism.

Best of all, I experienced support and guidance from someone who clearly did not agree with me but was nevertheless committed to helping me. Whenever I am tempted to lump all Christians together and apply categorical statements, I recall this professor as the exception that shatters my stereotype.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Overcoming Obstacles to Atheist-Theist Dialogue

2009-01-29T05:17:00.000-06:00

Image by clemente via FlickrI think that it would be as much of a mistake for atheists to refuse to interact with religious believers as it would for believers to do the same with regard to atheists. Walling ourselves off from those who believe differently tends to be counterproductive, fostering ignorance and hostility. There is much to be gained from atheist-theist dialogue. One useful approach for encouraging such dialogue involves helping both sides approach each other more effectively, avoiding mistakes which are likely to be especially aversive to one another.

Proud Atheists has a great post on this topic in which he provides Christians with a list of what they should know when interacting with atheists. I believe that this is a productive exercise because many of the items on the list are precisely those things that will lead many atheists to end a conversation and decide that it is pointless.

I will leave it to Christians to compose a similar list of things that we atheists should know when interacting with them, but I will take the liberty to offer a few suggestions for their list:

Not all Christians are fundamentalists, evangelicals, Republicans, biblical literalists, creationists, or extremists.
Many Christians value science, reason, and critical thinking.
Not all Christians despise atheists. Some are genuinely curious, and others consider others' religion none of their business.
Some Christians are fierce advocates of church-state separation, reality-based science education, and the like.
Many Christians are perfectly content to live their own lives as they see fit and not attempt to legislate their beliefs or push their particular view of morality on others.

I'm sure there are others. The point is that there is misunderstanding and obstacles to be overcome on both sides. I suspect that atheists would find useful allies among some religious believers if we tried.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Motives for Door-to-Door Proselytizing

2009-01-21T05:25:00.000-06:00

Image by Dan Patterson via FlickrLong-time readers will know that door-to-door proselytizing is one of my pet peeves. It is a subject I have addressed here many times, including descriptions of means of deterrence I'm using. As much as I detest it, I admit finding the phenomenon quite fascinating. I think this is because it is difficult for me to comprehend how an adult could become convinced that anyone has not already heard their Jesus drivel repeatedly. A Christian, Daniel, recently left an intriguing comment on a post I wrote on Christians witnessing to atheists back in June of 2008. I am now wondering if proselytizing may be associated some sort of impulse control problem.

Here is Daniel's entire unedited comment:

Nobody likes it when you show up at their door. I get mormons and JWs just like everyone. I dont need points so thats not why I do it. My religion does tell me to, but thats not my primary motivation either. I respect your beliefs and recognize the strength one must have to get through this life unassisted. However, I just cant keep it to myself though you wish I would. Since people like me absolutely have to anyway, I will keep your don't do list in mind( except for the "dont do it" part) He can do many things for you Shawn. I am living proof. I have a question for you: Do you really find fulfillment in any of these things on Earth? I have done every drug and almost every other self-satisfying thing you can imagine. All it left me with was emptyness. If you really are truly satisfied and fulfilled, and have reached the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, then I can't do anything for you. I would still be your friend, but wouldn't waste my time on telling you stuff you don't want to hear. It takes a stronger person than me to be an atheist, and I respect that. I used to think of atheist as like free-agents in pro sports, but your post makes sense in that you have thought it over and chosen atheist, instead of just being atheists by default. Do you guys vote for Obama mostly? Is that a dumb question?

I'd like to set aside the last bit about about Obama and focus on the portions relevant to proselytizing. Daniel acknowledges that it is annoying when someone shows up at his door to proselytize. He does not enjoy hearing from Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses either. And yet, Daniel himself engages in door-to-door proselytizing.

How does he justify doing something that he knows others dislike? He denies that it is about the magic Jesus points or even because his religion tells him to do so (although he acknowledges that it does). Rather Daniel says, "...I just cant keep it to myself..." (sic). When it comes to proselytizing, Daniel just can't help it.

Of course, I am not seriously suggesting that Christian evangelicals have any sort of impulse control disorder. Proselytizing is a voluntary behavior which these individuals, including Daniel are perfectly capable of controlling. I do not for a minute think that Daniel intends to claim that he cannot regulate his own behavior in this regard.

From his comment, it sounds to me like Daniel searched for fulfillment in many unproductive places before finding the solace of religion. Now that he has done so, he feels tremendously better and wants to share his experience with others in the hope that it might help them. I do understand this urge and can think of secular versions that I have experienced personally. In this way, I can relate to Daniel's experience.

Sadly, Daniel does not regard himself as strong enough to face life free from delusion. Not knowing him, I'm in no position to say that he's wrong about this. Perhaps he will be so someday. I suspect there are many Christians out there who feel the same way.

The thing is, whether we focus on Daniel's proselytizing or an analogous secular scenario, it is exceedingly difficult to help someone who does not want to be helped. By showing up on their doorstep to preach at them, all one really accomplishes is making them less likely to seriously consider one's message.

I appreciate that Daniel says he respects my beliefs, but I would rather he mock my beliefs and instead respect my person, my property, my privacy, and my stated desire not to be bothered by evangelists at my door.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheists Visiting Christian Blogs

2009-01-02T06:05:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaIn a recent post, I wrote, "There are many excellent pro-religion blogs out there, but this is not one of them." Since I have had a couple of readers contact me to ask about where they could find good pro-religion blogs, I thought I'd address that here. I'd also like to ask what I hope will be a thought-provoking question: Should readers of atheist blogs make a habit of visiting some pro-religion blogs?

When I think of good pro-religion blogs, I automatically think of Christian blogs. This is a function of where I live and who has visited this blog. I am not saying there are not good blogs representative of other religions, but I am not familiar enough with them to comment.

The first good Christian blog that comes to mind is HarvestBoston. I can't say I read them regularly, but I probably have visited them as much as any other Christian blog. Besides, I found them open to - and even interested in - having some constructive atheist-theist dialogue a few years ago.

The blogs associated with Sojourners also come to mind as decent examples of progressive Christianity. Another solid progressive Christian blog is CrossLeft. For conservative Christian blogs, see the list of the best Christian blogs complied by the Evangelical Outpost in 2007. Just remember that the Evangelical Outpost is fairly conservative, so you won't find many progressive blogs on their list. I suspect that some of my readers may have their own favorites, so feel free to add some in the comments thread.

Turning now to the question I asked in the introduction: Should readers of atheist blogs make a habit of visiting some pro-religion blogs? I am tempted to say "yes" because doing so may provide us with opportunities to learn from them, correct misconceptions about atheism, get some productive dialogue started, and find potential allies. We often lament the unwillingness of progressive Christians to denounce the extremists in their midst, but we do not always notice and give credit when they do so. What do you think?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Progressive Christians: Allies in Opposing Christian Extremism

2008-04-24T05:31:00.000-05:00

They may spend more time bemoaning the "evils" of secularism when someone gives them a microphone, but Christian extremists also view progressive Christians as their enemies. Many go so far as to call them "fake Christians" even though it is usually their politics on which the disagreement centers. We atheists must be careful about not lumping all Christians together. In a fairly religious country such as the United States, we can find important allies against Christian extremism among many in the so-called Christian left.

I am no longer surprised to discover that I have more in common with some progressive Christians than I do with some atheists, including certain atheist bloggers who will remain nameless. Yes, there are some truly good people out there who contribute to the progressive Christian blogosphere and who would make fine allies in many of the struggles in which atheists are engaged. For some noteworthy examples, check out A Religious Liberal Blog and CrossLeft.

Many progressive Christians believe in maintaining separation of church and state, and they generally have as little respect for Christian extremism as we do. Sure, it would be nice if they would speak out more against it, but some are. Besides, I value their contributions in other areas, such as social justice and the environment.

I know that some atheists, including me at times, have trouble with people who believe absurdities. This can be an obstacle to be sure, and there are others. However, I think there are many ways we can work with progressive Christians to accomplish shared goals without getting bogged down in trying to convert one another. Making the world a better place is a worthwhile enough goal that we should be able to get beyond one's motives for wanting to do so.

Tags: Christian extremism, progressive Christians, Christian extremists, politics, Christians, atheists, atheist, atheism, Christian left, church and state, social justice, environment

What Would You Say To Christian Leaders?

2008-03-27T05:47:00.000-05:00

If you are interested in some atheist-theist dialogue, I must apologize for not providing many opportunities around here lately. However, I can direct you to such an opportunity at An Apostate's Chapel. The Chaplain received an interesting question from a Christian reader seeking input from non-believers.

The reader's question is as follows:

Non-Christians can only draw conclusions about the Christian Church from the church’s collective public attitudes and behaviors. I believe much of the Christian Church wants to play a vital role in the health of their communities, but many churches are currently struggling with an identity crisis. If churches are not going to ‘go away’ (and I do not believe that is going to happen), they need to know how the greater community could see itself benefiting from the presence of the church. I would like to hear from the non-Christians: “If you were given the opportunity to speak from a public platform that reached a large constituency of Christian leaders, and you could say just one thing to them, what would you like to say that might make their presence more acceptable and their ‘love/grace’ message more authentic?”

Here is the comment I left:

First, it is simply untrue that non-Christians “can only draw conclusions about the Christian Church from the church’s collective public attitudes and behaviors.” Some of my conclusions come from close examination of Christian doctrine (e.g., the Christian bible). It is safe to say that an important part of what I believe about the Christian church is based on their willingness to accept irrational beliefs.

I am skeptical of your claim that “much of the Christian Church wants to play a vital role in the health of their communities…” because I think the primary mission of most churches is simply to sustain themselves. In all fairness, I think many do want to play a role in their communities, although I’m less willing to accept the notion that they are truly interested in the health of the community.

I agree with you completely that churches are not going to go away, at least not anytime soon. Their identity crisis is really a struggle to remain relevant in the modern world. To their credit, many are evolving to do so. The problem, from my perspective, with your question is that I am not convinced that the community does benefit from the presence of churches.

In my opinion, the church as an institution is obsolete. The good works they provide (and they do provide good works in many communities) can and should be provided by secular agencies so that assistance will not be contingent on acceptance of irrational dogma.

I suppose my message to Christian leaders would be that they need to get out of the way of reason, science, and secular education. They need to be energetic participants in the struggle to strengthen separation of church and state. They have a right to believe what they will, but they must recognize that merging religion and government is bad for both. I do not buy their “love/grace message” one bit because it smacks of hypocrisy and seems to apply only to those who believe as they do. As for making their presence more acceptable, I’m honestly not sure. Encouraging people to believe claims without evidence is unlikely to be acceptable to me.

Head on over to An Apostate's Chapel to contribute to the discussion.

Tags: atheist, Christian

Atheism Doesn't Always Strengthen Their Faith

2008-03-04T05:40:00.000-06:00

It seems nearly impossible for Christians to discuss atheism without eventually making some claim about how atheism only strengthens their faith. Of course, this should be no surprise. Material which contradicts one's belief system will often strengthen one's belief in the "truth" one thinks one has, especially when one refuses to seriously question the assumptions behind this "truth" (i.e., refuses to exercise reason). And yet, many ex-Christians report that exposure to atheism had exactly the opposite effect, helping them eventually break free from irrational belief.

Those of us maintaining atheist blogs do sometimes wonder if we are preaching to the choir. If I were to analyze the readership of this blog, it is likely that I would find that the vast majority of my readers were atheists. Among the Christians with whom I have interacted here, there have been some curious visitors, many pesky trolls, and only a handful of regular readers who seem to genuinely engage the material without the not-so-subtle conversion ploys.

However, this group of Christians who do appear to be interested in real dialogue are a great bunch, and I wish I could attract more of them. They make me think, stimulate discussion in the comment thread, and provide cause for optimism. Indeed, this sort of Christian will always be welcome here.

I also happen to believe that they are among the least likely to report that atheism strengthens their faith. I base this speculation on the fact that I was once one of them. Exposure to atheism certainly did not strengthen my faith; it showed me that there was a viable alternative which made far more sense to my rational mind. Most of all, exposure to atheism provided me with a needed model of a life without superstition.

Tags: atheism, faith, belief, reason, ex-Christians, atheist blogs, atheist, trolls, Christian, superstition

Empathy For Christians

2008-01-30T05:39:00.000-06:00

Many atheists will acknowledge that they sometimes feel sorry for their Christian neighbors. But this pity is not the same thing as empathy. How many atheists experience feelings of empathy for the believers surrounding them? Are such feelings beneficial, possibly contributing to effective dialogue, or do they get in our way?

Pity vs. Empathy

Pity amounts to feeling sorry for someone and often carries a condescending aspect. For example, one may pity Christians for their inability to live free from the delusion that nonbelievers have escaped. Nobody particularly wants to be pitied, as most are aware of the subtle insult it contains.

In contrast, empathy refers to a capacity to relate to another in a nonjudgmental, emotionally relevant manner. When we talk of walking in the shoes of another or seeing the world through someone else's eyes, we are close to empathy. However, empathy carries a vital emotional component in that the empathic persons is able to relate on an emotional level and not simply an intellectual one.

Empathic Understanding of Christians

When I attempt to relate to Christians in an empathic manner, I can begin to understand why atheists are so threatening. Most (if not all) Christians experience periods of doubt. Their faith conflicts with reality, and they are not immune to perceiving the conflict. I imagine that some of these times are scary. After all, many Christians will tell you that their faith is an important part of their identity. Questioning one's identity or encountering threats to how one has defined oneself provoke the sort of existential anxiety with which we can all relate.

We all experience our anxieties, or fears, and we know them to be unpleasant experiences. To reduce these feelings, we engage in all sorts of irrational thought processes and behaviors. These are part of the human condition and by no means unique to Christians. By recognizing them in ourselves, we can better empathize with Christians and perhaps gain insight into our own minds.

To manage the sort of anxiety that comes from doubting their faith, many Christians devalue atheism and criticize atheists. This often leads them to report a strengthening of their faith. If atheism has merit, Christianity, a core part of the identity of many Christians, could be false. Christianity must not be false because this would be too much of a blow to one's identity, and therefore, atheism can have no real merit.

To the outside observer, this seems like a sort of stubborn irrationality. It is irrational, and it does represent a rather primitive attempt to distort reality to preserve a flawed identity. But, whether we want to admit it or not, we should be able to relate if we are honest. Nobody enjoys the feeling that their worldview, indeed their identity, is crumbling. We all use denial and other irrational mechanisms on occasion to ward off uncomfortable feelings.

Atheist, Know Thyself

It is often said, at least within the histories of psychology and literature, that Freud's real contribution involved dispelling the myth of human rationality. Copernicus showed that we do not occupy the center of the universe. Darwin offered a natural explanation for the many species around us and how we fit into a larger biological system. Freud exposed the limitations of our own minds and provided a natural explanation for religious belief.

By bringing empathy to bear in our quest to understand the Christian mind, we are reminded that irrationality is part of the human condition. This may be an uncomfortable truth for many atheists, but I believe that it also offers an invaluable opportunity for us to "practice what we preach." As we encourage the Christian to set aside his or her denial and explore a reality free from delusion, we must be willing to do the same. We must face irrationality in ourselves and be willing to learn from it.

Tags: atheism, atheist, psychology, religion, Christianity, Christian, empathy, awareness, insight, Darwin, Freud, belief, irrationality, anxiety, pity

Post on Doubting Faith Included In Christian Blog Carnival

2008-01-27T13:39:00.000-06:00

Kudos to Christian blogger, Hopeful Spirit of On the Horizon for including my post, "Doubting Your Faith?" in The Seventh Day blog carnival. Hopeful's rationale for including the post?

Why is a post from an atheist included in a blog carnival hosted at a Christian site? Because the philosophy here at On the Horizon is and always will be “radical inclusivity.” Christians are called to love everyone, including — and many would say especially — our atheist and agnostic brothers and sisters. The author included this description when submitting his article to the carnival: “This post asks Christians who are doubting their faith to consider a possibility that may be new to them - the possibility that their doubt is a healthy reflection of their rational mind trying to break free from superstition to experience genuine meaning.” Here’s an opportunity for Christian and nonbelieving readers to engage in a meaningful dialogue!

If you are interested in this sort of dialogue, check out the carnival and let them know you were there.

Tags: faith, Christian, doubt, blog carnival, atheist, theist

Doubting Your Faith?

2008-01-17T05:47:00.000-06:00

This is for the Christians out there who find yourselves doubting your faith. You are going to receive a lot of advice from your fellow Christians about how doubt will strengthen your faith and may even bring you closer to your god. I'm not here to argue with that or to tell you that such a perspective is necessarily wrong. I just want to point out that there is another possibility you should at least consider. What if the doubt you are experiencing is a healthy sign that your rational mind is trying to break free from a tradition of superstition?

Tradition can be a reassuring source of comfort in the dark times when we long for familiarity, but this does not necessarily make it worth retaining. Consider the person raised in home filled with racist attitudes. Racism is likely to feel familiar, even comfortable, but that does not mean that the individual cannot and should not leave it behind with maturity, even if his or her family continues to cling to it. That you were raised in the Christian tradition is no reason to maintain your belief. After all, I expect that are other aspects of your family's belief system to which you are no longer bound.

As we mature, we often begin to doubt many things we never used to question. There might have been a time when you believed in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, but I'd guess you set these beliefs aside long ago. And why did you set them aside? After all, you cannot prove that there is no Santa or Tooth Fairy. You set them aside because your rational mind realized that there was no evidence to suggest that they were real.

Belief in a god (or gods) is similar in the lack of evidence, but different in that it is far more likely to have negative consequences. Maybe you have heard your religious relatives condemn others for not adhering to the same religious beliefs. Maybe you have seen them behave in a manner inconsistent with the religious values they profess. Or maybe you've just grown tired of the endless religious violence, the pedophile priests, the holier-than-thou routine, or the utter hypocrisy of it all. In other words, religion is unlike Santa because it divides people and contributes to great suffering.

Perhaps it is time to explore the possibility of a life where meaning is derived from what is - rather than from fantasies about what one wants it to be. I know it is scary to imagine your life without religion. After all, it may be all you've ever known. The doubt you are experiencing might even feel like a part of your very self is at risk. But do not be so quick to dismiss your doubt. Your rational mind is trying to communicate with you.

Right here in your own country, there are millions of atheists. Maybe you have been taught that we are monsters, but we are just like you minus accepting the existence of god(s). In fact, many of us are ex-Christians who know what you are going through. Many of us are happy, well-adjusted people who find great meaning in our daily lives. Many of us experience an invigorating sense of stimulation and freedom that comes from living in the real world without having to maintain the suspension of disbelief required by religion.

If you'd like to learn more about atheism and what a life without religion might look like, I've compiled some good places to start below:

Tags: religion, doubt, faith, Christianity, atheist, atheism

Agreeing to Disagree

2007-08-30T05:37:00.000-05:00

Most of my close friends are Christians, and I've certainly had my share of good friends who were...(gasp)...Republicans. I suppose that we've generally accomplished this through implicit agreements that certain topics are off limits. Other times, we'll discuss something briefly, disagree and realize the futility of persuading the other party, and then agree to disagree, setting the topic aside.

A Load of Bright just did an interesting post on the subject of agreeing to disagree, and I think it warrants comment. The just of the post is that it isn't always easy to agree to disagree - sometimes one wants to continue the argument, risking being called "a bad sport" or worse. Often, one must make a judgment call as to whether the disagreement is genuinely unresolvable or whether the other party is merely hiding being the agreeing to disagree suggestion so as not to give serious reconsideration of his or her position.

What is not directly addressed in the post and what I believe to be critical here is the factual nature of the disagreement. Far too often, Christians jump to the agree to disagree position when the facts are against them. This is the time when agreeing to disagree is untenable.

The claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old is factually false. Overwhelming evidence contradicts this claim. If the Christian makes this claim and I challenge him, we cannot very well agree to disagree. This is a matter of fact and not a matter of beliefs or values. Remember, belief does not equal truth. The Christian can insist, "But I really believe it" until he's blue in the face. This has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the claim (although it would suggest that the Christian is delusional). Agreeing to disagree here might reduce conflict but would do the Christian a disservice by reinforcing his delusion.

Tags: belief, truth, religion, Christianity, Christian, conflict

What Have I Learned About Evangelical Christians?

2007-05-06T11:16:00.000-05:00

Awhile back, I posed a series of questions to current or former evangelical Christians. Thanks to all those who responded. Before reading this post where I will do my best to summarize what I learned, I recommend you review the previous post so you understand the rationale for my questions. Okay, now we'll continue and see if we can't all learn something about evangelical Christians.

I'm organizing the rest of this post in a question and answer format, starting with each of my questions followed by a summary of coherent responses. For the sake of brevity, the summary of responses will be just that - a summary.

What are evangelical Christians taught about the value of proselytizing?

Many of those who responded made reference to the Christian bible and how it is regularly interpreted as commanding believers to preach to others. They evangelize because their god commands them to do so or as a way of honoring their god. Others indicated that they are driven by the strength of their belief (i.e., they attempt to communicate their beliefs to others because their beliefs are so strong that they must come out). It almost sounds as if sharing one's religious beliefs with others is viewed as an indication of the strength of one's faith.

Proselytizing appears to be more of an important social norm rather than a rule. That is, believers learned that it was beneficial, that heavenly rewards were associated with it, and that they would be devalued or even viewed with suspicion for failing to proselytize. Some also learned that others would burn in hell if they were not saved, so conversion attempts can easily be framed as a form of compassion.

Is it fair to say that converting others to one's religion is an important goal for evangelical Christians?

There was unanimous agreement that conversion is an important goal for evangelical Christians, although some were not crazy about the word "conversion" in this context. It was pointed out that evangelism is about attempting to lead nonbelievers to their god. The idea seems to be that the Christian god does the conversion supernaturally, and the evangelical's task is to facilitate that. There is no question that helping others find their god is an important (if not central) activity for evangelical Christians. As many believers are absolutely convinced that they have the truth, it makes sense that they would want to share it with others, especially if they also believe that this sort of sharing with be beneficial to their god, themselves, and the listener.

If so, what is the motivation for converting others to your religion? Are certain rewards promised, does it simply relate to believing that others would be better off as Christians, or is there some other motive?

Many motives were described, including spiritual benefits, love of one's fellow humans and/or of one's god, the sense that one was following god's commands or performing a valuable duty, increased attendance at one's church, validation of one's own beliefs, strengthening one's own faith, social comparison with one's peers, and the conviction that leading others to one's god really was in their best interest (i.e., salvation). An important intrinsic motive appears to be simply wanting others to share in a highly valued experience. Just like other forms of sharing meaningful experiences, the idea seems to be that this can be a way to connect with others.

Do/did you ever feel any external pressure to convert others, or was this purely an intrinsic desire?

Many believers acknowledged external pressure, and some even recounted being given assignments to share their faith with others. Some perceived the pressure as supernatural, referring to their god. Some indicated that there was also pressure to behave as if they were having spiritual experiences (e.g., speaking in tongues, etc.). Others disagreed with the idea of external pressure and referred instead to pressure in the form of spiritually-derived compassion for others. One particularly interesting theme that came up was the feelings of righteous and warrior mentality that sometimes accompanied one's efforts to share one's faith.

Were you ever provided with any instruction or guidance about how to convert others?

Evidently, this is so common as to be close to universal. Evangelicals described being given all sorts of tools to assist their proselytizing (e.g., training manuals, bible passages to quote, tracts to distribute, DVDs on how to evangelize, pat answers to common questions, classes on how to reach specific groups, etc.).

Concluding Thoughts

In the original post in which I posed these questions, I promised Christians who took the time to respond that this was not an effort to trap or bait them. I remain true to my word here. This was an informative exercise, and I think that I understand the mind of the evangelical Christian better now as a result, even though I acknowledge that there is much which I will probably never truly grasp.

I think that what surprised me most about the comments I received in response to my initial query was their degree of agreement. Don't get me wrong - there was diversity of opinion and of experience - but I don't think I realized that the similarities would outweigh the differences to the degree that they did. What this tells me is that the term "evangelical Christian" is meaningful and can convey important information. I realize that this summary post captures only a tiny portion of what could be described as the evangelical Christian worldview, but it is a starting point and one which certainly represents an expansion of my knowledge in this area.

Tags: religion, Christian, Christianity, evangelical, evangelical Christian, evangelical Christianity

Calling Current and Former Evangelical Christians

2007-04-28T07:38:00.000-05:00

Like most Americans, I was indoctrinated with Christianity during childhood. In my case, this was a progressive and fairly liberal form of Christianity that bore little resemblance to the fundamentalist or evangelical forms which currently seem so popular. As a result, I have a difficult time understanding the motivation of those who describe themselves as evangelical. In this post, I'd like to pose a few questions to those who currently or previously considered themselves as belonging to an evangelical form of Christianity.

To elaborate a bit on the background for the questions that will follow, I should point out that I had virtually no exposure to evangelical Christianity until approximately age 17. The Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Catholics I grew up with all shared a common perspective that religion was a private matter. At some level, I think we knew that arguing about differences among the various denominations would accomplish little besides hurt feelings. Religion was something we thought about at home and at church, but it had little relevance in the public sphere.

You can imagine my surprise when I finally begin to encounter evangelical Christians. They talked about religion constantly, prayed in public, and often reminded me of someone attempting to sell a product when they would discuss religion. It had never occurred to me that anyone would care as much as they appeared to about converting others. I suppose it is fair to say that I have remained somewhat puzzled about this through the present day.

So here are my questions for those of you who would currently or previously characterize yourself as evangelical Christians:

What are evangelical Christians taught about the value of proselytizing?
Is it fair to say that converting others to one's religion is an important goal for evangelical Christians?
If so, what is the motivation for converting others to your religion? Are certain rewards promised, does it simply relate to believing that others would be better off as Christians, or is there some other motive?
Do/did you ever feel any external pressure to convert others, or was this purely an intrinsic desire?
Were you ever provided with any instruction or guidance about how to convert others?

Despite what I have heard from evangelical Christians and read by evangelical authors in my adult years, I'm not sure that I've been able to get clear answers to these questions. Perhaps I haven't been asking them correctly, but I'm trying to do so now.

Since this is obviously an atheist blog, I do not blame you for being skeptical of my intent in posing these questions. However, I am genuinely making an effort to understand something which I do not believe I understand very well. No traps, no ploys to use your responses against you, just an attempt to learn something on my part.

Tags: religion, Christian, Christianity, evangelical

Atheist-Theist Dialogue: One Obstacle

2007-03-28T05:30:00.000-05:00

Is it possible for atheists and theists to have a meaningful dialogue? Forget for a second whether such a dialogue would be beneficial and consider whether it is possible. If so, what might it look like? As atheism becomes more common, this question will be asked even more frequently by both atheists and believers. I see one fairly massive obstacle to such a dialogue, and I am not sure what it will take to overcome it.

The obstacle can be illustrated best with the following quote from Daniel C. Dennett (italics added):

"..can we public atheists have productive conversations with believers? Certainly. We can discuss every issue under the sun...respecting each other as citizens with honest disagreements about fundamental matters that can be subjected to reasonable, open inquiry and mutual persuasion... As long as those who are believers will acknowledge that their allegiance gives them no privilege, no direct line to the absolute truth, no advantage in moral insight, we should be able to get along just fine."

I told you it was a big obstacle! I think that Dennett is absolutely correct here. As long as believers insist that their faith counts as some sort of special knowledge, that they are the only ones capable of being moral, and that they alone have "the truth," it is difficult to imagine meaningful dialogue. Sadly, I am doubtful that believers will do this.

Tags: religion, atheism, atheist

Most Christians Are Good People

2007-01-28T16:11:00.001-06:00

When discussing the many adverse effects of religion with a believer, one statement almost inevitably enters the conversation: "Most Christians are good people." The believer will surely acknowledge that many people have committed awful acts in the name of religion. Perhaps they weren't "real Christians." Perhaps they were simply misguided in their actions. Regardless of the reason, they are the exception and certainly not the norm. You might expect that I, as an atheist, must disagree with this statement. However, I do not. Most Christians are good people.

Saying that most Christians are good poses no problem for the atheist.

As an atheist, there is no reason why I can't agree that most Christians are good people. Most Christians I have met are kind, trustworthy, honorable individuals who treat others as they would like to be treated. They do their best to live productive lives, and many are genuinely concerned about the plight of their neighbors. Many care deeply about improving the present world in which they live.

Of course, everything I just said applies equally to atheists and persons who are believers in other religious traditions. Most atheists are good people. Most Jews are good people. You get the idea. In essence, most people are good people, regardless of which religious tradition (or lack thereof) in which they were raised.

Saying that most atheists are good poses an insurmountable problem for the Christian.

Unfortunately, the Christian cannot agree that most atheists are good people without adding an important qualifier, at least implicitly. The qualifier is comparative in nature, placing Christians on a pedestal above non-believers and believers from other religious traditions. The atheist may be good, but he/she cannot possibly be as good as the Christian. The atheist or the person from a different religion may be good in some sense, but he/she is still going to hell to be punished for all eternity. The Christian bible is quite clear that persons who do not believe in the Christian god are not equivalent to those who do in many ways. Their fate in the afterlife will be very different.

This is what I mean when I say that religion is inherently divisive. Believers in any religious tradition are indoctrinated to believe that theirs is the one true faith. Their god beats all others. Their morality trumps all others. Their fellow believers are more worthy, deserving, etc. than everyone else. As an atheist, I am not encumbered with this sort of prejudice.

Claims about most Christians being good have little relevance to the larger question about the costs of religion.

What the believer often fails to grasp is that claims involving how most believers are good people have little relevance to the larger question about the maladaptive nature of religion. Religion does not make people good (or bad). It may at times inspire people to do great things, but it also brings out the worst sort of atrocities and fosters irrationality. As Steven Weinberg reminds us:

"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

To understand why this is the case, one simply needs to consider the earlier point about religion being inherently divisive. If I am taught to believe that people who do not share my beliefs are inferior to those who do not, there is little to stop me from treating them accordingly. If I am indoctrinated from birth to believe that persons with different beliefs are morally inferior, condemned to hell, diabolical, etc., the door to atrocities opens wide. If this indoctrination has also diminished my ability to effectively apply reason by convincing me that faith is superior, look out.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: religion, faith, Christian, Christianity, atheist, atheism

Opening a Dialogue Between Atheists and Christians

2006-07-25T06:06:00.000-05:00

I was recently contacted by Steve from HarvestBoston, a Christian blog. Far from condemning me to hell, he expressed interest in a Christian-atheist dialogue. Steve asked if I would be willing to write something that he could share with his readers in which I explained my belief that many Christians were Christian in name only, failing to act in a manner consistent with the teachings attributed to Jesus. He thought it would be beneficial to his Christian readers. I agreed, and you can read his post here. I encourage you to visit and share your perspective with his readers as well as contributing to the comments here.

This experience confirms a few things I have long suspected. First, atheists and "real" Christians (i.e., those who attempt to follow the core themes contained in the words attributed to Jesus) have quite a bit in common. Of course, we disagree on the god question, but our similarities should not be overlooked. You see, Steve agrees that too many Christians fail to follow the teachings attributed to Jesus. He too perceives this as a problem.

Second, productive dialogue between atheists and Christians is possible. We cannot rightly expect every Christian to condemn us, and Christians should be able to expect some measure of civility from us. I am not saying that we should water down our critique of religion; I am saying that considering all Christians as "the enemy" is counterproductive.

Third, I am gradually coming to believe that, at least for me, religion and politics are inseparable. By this, I mean that any critique of religion that is broader than the usual philosophical arguments against it invariably turns to politics. The claim that religious belief is destructive in the modern world brings us to foreign policy. The suggestion that many Christians have abandoned a central theme of their bible, namely how the poor are to be treated, brings us to domestic programs. The issues about which we atheists are deeply concerned are nearly always political (e.g., abortion, church-state separation, stem cell policies, etc.).

Atheists and Christians can (and should) work together toward many important political goals. Our motivation for improving our world may differ, but our goals are often similar.

Postscript: Don't worry, I'm not going crazy here like a certain other (raving) atheist.

Tags: atheist, Christian, bible, Jesus, politics, blog, atheist activism

An Open Letter to Christians

2006-07-23T14:35:00.000-05:00

Dear Christian,

As an atheist (i.e., one who does not share your belief in god), I will not pretend to have a comprehensive grasp of your beliefs and how they guide your actions. I find the concept of the Christian god to be logically inconsistent, and I worry that your embrace of faith opens the door to the denigration of reason. I fear that a future of religion will be a future of continued intolerance and conflict. I could say more about the reasons for my lack of belief, but that is not the purpose of this letter.

I am writing to express my confusion over how many Christians seem to act contrary to the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible. Christian extremists such as Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson preach intolerance and hatred. I cannot reconcile their message with what Jesus is reported to have said. But the problem goes way beyond a handful of extremists. The policies of the Bush administration cannot be reconciled with the core themes present in the words of Jesus (i.e., concern for the poor, contempt for those who amass material wealth while neglecting the less fortunate, social justice, etc.). Jesus had far more to say about how the poor should be treated than he did abortion or gay marriage.

Doesn't part of being a Christian imply agreement with the words attributed to Jesus? In fact, aren't his words supposed to be a guide for action? Can a reasonable person argue that he was anything but clear about the value of the poor and how they should be treated? This seems so obvious, but those in America who proclaim their Christianity the loudest seem to act contrary to these teachings (e.g., favoring large corporations over the working poor, refusing to raise the minimum wage, cutting taxes for the wealthy, preemptive war, etc.). This seems like hypocrisy to me.

When you say that you are a Christian, what does that mean to you? Does your definition include acceptance of the core themes present throughout the words of Jesus? If so, does your definition also include acting in accordance with these themes? You see, part of my confusion is based on my observation that many of my fellow atheists act in a manner consistent with the teachings of Jesus while many self-proclaimed Christians do not. Granted, we atheists would say that our actions are based on secular humanism rather than biblical teachings, but the result is often similar. Moreover, it is rare that I see organized groups of Christians denouncing the Christian extremists who spread hate. This gives non-believers the message that more Christians agree with the extremist agenda than may be the case.

As a secular humanist, I believe that the eradication of poverty is a necessary goal in the pursuit of social justice. This position seems more than compatible with Jesus' teachings; it seems like one of his central themes. I will not try to speak for all atheists, but I would certainly welcome an ongoing dialogue with Christians who agree with Jesus. As for those who call themselves Christians while ignoring or acting contrary to Jesus' core teachings, I hope you will join me in opposing them.

Tags: Christian, Christianity, poverty, atheist, bible, Jesus, politics, Bush, faith, secular humanism, Christian extremism, social justice

Opening a Dialogue With Christians: Lya's Report

2006-01-15T08:53:00.000-06:00

Fellow atheist, Lya, has a great post at Escapee From the Meme Machine in which she describes the results of an informal experiment in which she visited Christian forums for a few months. Why would she put herself through that? She wanted to see whether a discussion between atheists and Christians would produce anything of value.

The results of this experiment were fascinating. She reports on several common misconceptions about atheists, reasons Christians provide for why it is okay to believe things that have no supportive evidence, frequently encountered fallacies, etc. I strongly encourage you to read her excellent post.

Note: Lya's post also appears at God is For Suckers!

Tagged as: Christianity, atheism

An Alliance With Progressive Christians

2005-11-02T06:05:00.000-06:00

In a recent post over at It Ain't Necessarily So..., Sportin' Life got me thinking about the issue of atheists working with progressive Christians. This post seemed to echo my previous thoughts on the topic, but reflected concerns I didn't properly address.

In order to come together in a productive working relationship with Christians, we atheists would need to keep our criticism of religious belief to ourselves. Obviously, attacking the beliefs of those with whom we are trying to cultivate a relationship is not going to be helpful. If that makes you uneasy, try looking at it this way:

Our eventual goal of helping society move beyond the need for religious belief is a long-term goal. On the path to this goal, there are many steps, some of which are likely to require the support of progressive Christians (e.g., combating Christian extremism, limiting the political power of evangelicals, etc.). These goals steps are important enough that we can certainly afford to be courteous in our interactions with progressive Christians.

If you are having a negative reaction to this, I think I know why. Let me present three points which may ease your concerns. First, for this to work, we would expect such courtesy in return. If we are to keep our criticism of religion to ourselves in the interest of cohesion, the progressive Christians must similarly keep their criticism of atheism or proselytizing to themselves. Fortunately, I don't expect that this would be a problem for most moderate Christians. Second, limiting our criticism of religion in this particular context in no way requires us to change our beliefs or suggests that our criticism must be limited in other contexts. When you co-worker tells you that her father died yesterday and her only consolation is knowing that he is "in a better place," you don't choose that moment to criticize her faith, do you? And the fact that you don't choose that particular moment doesn't mean that you have suddenly become a Christian, a sell-out, or have otherwise compromised your beliefs, does it? In fact, your willingness to keep your mouth shut out of respect for your co-worker's feelings probably has nothing at all to do with your feelings about religion. See the parallel? Third, I seriously doubt Sam Harris goes around challenging religious faith in every interaction he has. Isn't it far more likely that he is a fairly normal person in his personal life and reserves his critique for his professional life?

We often criticize the moderates for not speaking out against the fundamentalists. Maybe by developing an alliance with them, we can model such opposition and arouse their desire to speak out.

Tagged as: atheism