The following is by Andres (a friend on myspace). Originally posted
here.“Religion, opium for the people! To those suffering pain, humiliation, illness, and serfdom, it promised a reward in afterlife. And now we are witnessing a transformation. A true opium of the people is the belief in nothingness after death. The huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.”- Czeslaw Milosz
“Don’t ever ask me to rob a man of his religious belief, as if you thought my mind tended to such robbery. I have too profound a conviction of the efficacy which underlies all sincere faith, and the blight that comes with no faith, to have any negative propagandism in me. In fact I have very little sympathy with Freethinkers as a class, and have lost all interest in mere antagonisms to religious doctrines. I care to know, if possible, the lasting meaning which lies in all religious doctrines from the beginning till now.”- George Eliot
"Feuerbach argued that humanity constructed its own religious ideals for its convenience and consolation; in Milozs’ argument, we can see the recognition that both belief in God and a refusal to believe in God are themselves the result of human longings; the former a consolation and a longing for immortality, and the latter a longing for autonomy and a lack of accountability. Both are opiums of the people, different groups of people, but both needing their respective opiums." McGrath
Should Atheism designate those who positively reject belief in God, or should it also refer to those who do not at the moment actually believe in supernatural beings? Does atheism embrace all those who are still thinking about God and those who regard the question as insoluble (i.e. agnostics)? The college graduate who has suspended judgment on God while he/she reflects on the issues cannot be designated an atheist for that reason, she might be a potential atheist, but might equally end up as an agnostic or Christian. Is it acceptable to call a person an atheist because they do not presently believe in God? Atheism is not about the suspension of judgment on the God question; it is a firm and principled commitment to the non-existence of God, and the liberating impact of this belief. The very idea is declared to be outdated, enslaving, and a downright self-contradiction. At its best and most authentic, atheism is a protest, a protest against the social and personal injustices often linked with religion and certain of its ideas in the past, which are held to be reactionary, oppressive, or even demonic. How can you not respect atheism on these points?
'Do we not all share a hatred for belief in falsities? Of dated ethical codes that seemingly lead to violence, fanaticism, paranoia, hatred, and self-loathing? In essence however, these are the very same things that the very faith I was raised in spoke out against. How can two worldviews with passions so strongly alike, come to such diametrically opposed conclusions? One need not be an unbeliever to hate these things, but it seems like anti-religious propagandists will make you believe you have to shed all belief in God in order to gain a new appreciation for nature, a ‘true’ appreciation. Like Dawkins says, isn’t it enough to enjoy the beauty of a garden, without worrying about the fairies at the bottom? We all want for the same things; the Bible speaks of a new Earth in which every tear will be wiped out, where there will be no hunger, no thirst, and no needs. Similarly, a common theme in books writen by the new atheists devote the last chapters to describing a near utopian vision of the world. A world where disease is no longer rampant, through science, where hunger is no longer a problem, via genetic manipulation of the world’s crops, and where no man shall slay another man.
Atheism and Theism both seem to appeal to our human aspirations, they appeal to our sense that things aren’t the way they ought to be. They appeal to our hopes of a better world, a utopian world, whether physical or metaphysical, where past wrongs will be corrected, and life can be lived as it was meant to. The difference it seems, is how to define how exactly it is that life is meant to be lived. To some, let’s say, the lovers of reason, life is lived to the fullest when it is free of superstition, of ideas that enslave the mind, of living up to the wise aspect of our biological name Homo (wise) Sapiens (man). Aristotle believed the purpose of all things was to fulfill their ‘telos’, or their designed, to fulfill their purpose. To him, that purpose was being rational, it was to fulfill our duties as rational beings by acting in accord to reason. On the other side, we have those who take a different look of humanity, we do not place ourselves in a pedestal, that is, instead of looking at ourselves as divine creatures of our own accord, we look up at the author of our being as the only one capable of filling the gap. As the one whom our sense of alienation from this world points towards. Can’t there be both? Can’t we live a life committed to the principle that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’, while recognizing that there may be something beyond the empirical realm that is the source of our hunger?
"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (A Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotical revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.”- Aldous Huxley
What exactly is the appeal of atheism then? To some, it may be in its proposal to eradicate religion. As Allister McGrath points out
“If atheism had represented itself simply as commending the merits of a godless worldview, I would not have been attracted to it- and neither would many others. Its lure lay in its proposal to change the world rather than to create a little club of the godless in the midst of a religious world. As Karl Marx had pointed out many years earlier, philosophers had merely offered interpretations of the world; what was really needed was a transformation. The atheist vision was totalizing-a panoramic view of a society that had been liberated from its chief enemy and oppressor, whether that was defined as God or religion.”
When religion, at least in America, seems to be more concerned about popular political elections, about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry, whether or not they should be allowed to adopt a child, and about denying well established scientific truths such as Global Warming and Evolution, there is no doubt as to why some would see it as a tremendous step forward for humanity were religion to be eradicated. Second,
“atheism seemed to make a certain degree of sense to things. If there was no God, then life was what we chose to make of it. It was, in some ways, a rather bleak philosophy of life- but if it was right, who cared? Having read Camus and Sartre, I had come to the view that there was a real integrity, not to mention a certain degree of bravery, in embracing such an austere philosophy, which contrasted rather pleasingly with what I regarded as the superstitious delusions of Christianity. To my slightly confused way of thinking, the bleaker an outlook, the greater the chance of its being right in the first place.”
It seems to me like there is also another appeal to Atheism, and that is ‘protest atheism’. Not an intellectual rebellion against belief, but a moral rebellion.
“In the brothers Karamazov, one of the brothers, Ivan, acts as a spokesperson for those who question the coherence of traditional Christian belief. Ivan’s criticisms are directed not so much against God as against the world that God is alleged to have created. How can one believe in God, when the created order itself seems riddled with injustice and contradiction? A refusal to believe in God is the appropriate principled response to the inequities of the world, and the God who is alleged to have brought it into being, yet such a response seems curiously distant from the world’s sorrow and pain. Raging against injustice, Ivan asks Alyosha to imagine a shocking scene. An eight year old child accidentally bruises the leg of a general’s favorite beagle. Outraged, the general sets a pack of dogs upon the child, who is torn to pieces in front of his mother. What’s the justice in that, asks Ivan? How can anyone sing “You are just and true, O God, for your ways are made clear”? Ivan continues: I hasten to return my entry ticket. And if I am at all an honest man, I am obliged to return it as soon as possible. That is what I am doing. It isn’t God I don’t accept, Alyosha. It’s just his ticked that I most respectfully return to him.”- McGrath
The argument from evil is perhaps one of the strongest and most widely known arguments against the existence of God. And who hasn’t stopped to ponder and think about these questions? How can we reconcile an all caring God as the one portrayed in the Tanakh and the New Testament with a world like ours? As much as this argument may make us stop and think, within the field of philosophy, it seems to have resulted in a stalemate. It doesn’t seem like either side has ‘won’. Philosopher William Alston pointed out that ‘any logical argument which attempts to show that evil is logically incompatible with the existence of God is ‘now acknowledged on (almost) all sides’ to be completely bankrupt.
Personally speaking, Atheism has lost its appeal on me. It no longer appeals to my intellect as it once did. Philosophically, it is in no better shape or grounds than Theism. There is a terrible misconception out there that Atheism represents all that is rational in the world, with its bright philosophers like David Hume, Bertrand Russell, etc. holding prominent places at the top of the intellectual ladder, while Theism is a sort of backwaters belief system whose leading advocates are no more sophisticated than the Westboro Baptist Church folks or the folks at Answers in Genesis. Philosophically speaking, they are at a stalemate. You wouldn’t think so were you to glance through popular online blogs and debates between believers and unbelievers, but within the philosophical scholarly community, where rhetoric is turned down, and an emphasis is placed on logical coherent methodological thinking, the final outcome is far from clear. Can human reason ultimately lead to a final watertight proof for the existence or non-existence of a Creator? I highly doubt it, at least if history is any indication. Many theologians accept this, and so do many atheists, so it seems to me like agnosticism is the only rationally justified conclusion.
"The grand idea that atheism is the only option for a thinking person has long since passed away, being displaced by a growing awareness of the limitations placed on human knowledge and the need for humility in religious and anti-religious advocacy."
“As Thomas Huxley pointed out, no such decision may be reached on the basis of the evidence available, forcing us to reach one of two conclusions: either no decision can be reached (a position that Huxley designated ‘agnosticism’), or a decision is reached on other grounds. As Blaise Pascal pointed out, ‘reasons of the heart’ play a far greater role in shaping our attitudes to God than we realize.”
So what would propel someone to come to belief then? McGrath defines faith as ‘belief lying beyond proof’, which I believe to be a good definition. Many atheists, like Dawkins and Hitchens, love to describe faith as ‘a process of non-thinking’, or ‘believing what you know aint so’, but for philosophers, faith is a much different thing. What can one do when faced with a dilemma between two seemingly valid positions to hold? Should one give up? Or should one adopt one of the two views? One cannot say atheism is a suspension of belief; that would be agnosticism, atheism would be the declaration that there is no God, which is beyond proof itself, and thus falls into the category of faith, if we define it to be as ‘belief lying beyond proof’. Atheism has its strengths, and a great appeal to a population that has been fed up with the corruption and seeming indifference of religious institutions to the real problems facing our world today. It is no surprise that a resurgence of Atheism came about after the attacks of 9/11.
"Atheism, I believe, becomes more popular when religious communities become more corrupt-and especially when their corruption includes violence. This occurred in the decades after the Thirty Years War in European history, and I think we're entering a similar period today. When religion seems to produce violent or arrogant or hypocritical believers, many people decided it is more ethical not to believe. When the world's second largest religion seems (to many people) too tolerant of terrorism and sectarian violence, and sometimes even encourages and justifies them, we shouldn't be surprised that many people reject religion. When the world's largest religion seems (to many people) too tolerant of militarism, unjustified war, and consumerism, and sometimes even encourages and justifies them, we should be even less surprised. When both religions do too little to promote active peacemaking, care for the poor, concern for the environment, and the renewal of communities, when they seem more concerned with 'straining out gnats' of religious trivia than 'swallowing camels' of massive social injustice, we should only be surprised that more people haven't become atheists."- Brian D. McLaren
