Community | October 29, 2009 | 9 comments

Atheism's own fundamentalists lead 'religion' of 'Not'

Image
hpseaton
Forget God, let's talk about arrogance.

That's not exactly the way Rice University humanities professor Anthony Pinn, in an article for the online magazine Religion Dispatches, describes the monotone of mockery at the Atheist Alliance International convention, but it gets you to Pinn's key points pretty quickly.

The convention, starring the atheist band's Mick Jagger, Richard Dawkins, promoting his book on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth, and some backup singers like TV host Bill Maher, was held in Burbank, Calif., earlier this month.

Pinn found the main idea at the event, is that religion is

... the single most dangerous human creation.

The welfare of humanity, it was argued, depends on the dismantling of religion and all of its delusions. The possibility of collaboration, of compromise, of any shared ethical commitments between theists and non-theists, was not on the table.

Pinn, who calls himself a humanist, zeroes in on the common trait that atheists share with fundamentalists of any religion -- "their inability for critical self-reflection and critique."

They have formed, in effect, the religion of "not," defined by what they refuse and rebuke.

Consider Christopher Hitchens, the Keith Richards of the band (OK, enough Stones), who is on the road right now promoting his new documentary, Collision, in which he debates Rev. Douglas Wilson. Hitchens, who has no new intellectual songs to sing here but he does have nice manners, sort of. He writes in Slate

I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe.

Pinn, however, is more focused on substance. He proposes atheists and humanists construct

... (A) system of ethics meant to enhance quality of life, both through scientific advancement and rigorous struggle against irrational modes of destruction such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. What is necessary is the application of practices that speak clearly to atheism's concern for life within the context of a fragile environment.

After all, Pinn observes, while religious rituals doctrines shift with time and culture, religion is never going away. It offers it's own set of answers for core questions:

... Theism, at its core, is about the making of meaning and the establishment of stories and practices related to how and why we occupy time and space.

Pinn would like to see atheists, humanists and believers, retaining their distinctions, focus on shared ethical commitments. What are the chances?
  1. groups:
    Community,   current cult,   Religion,   Atheism,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Religion,  Atheism,  Humanism,  believers,  1 more
  3.     
    |

9 comments // Atheism's own fundamentalists lead 'religion' of 'Not'

  • Progresshiv
  • metalcookiesxy70
    • 0
      metalcookiesxy70  

    • I had a conversation with a Christian the other day, and I tried to get more explanations other than "Its God who done this" or "God is the truth"...
      (More advice with determining why the same explanation given can be appreciated)

      Anyway, its more harder than what it seems to try to give Christians another perspective(not to convert) than their usual "You are wrong and I am right" concept..
      I am not trying belittle them, I am trying to convince them that there is more than just their God and their way, there is way much more to explore beyond the Bible ever can...

    • 2 years ago
  • hpseaton
    • 0
      hpseaton  

    • I found this and posted it because of so many comments about the 'new atheists' and how a lot of people think they're like a religion. I don't see that, but I do like how humanism takes a more 'embracing' tack with religion most of the time.

      I still find the aggressiveness of the leading atheists more suited to the times, but that's just me.

    • 2 years ago
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  

    • I am on the fence, kind of, about the issues of confrontation.

      I AM an atheist, of a sort, since I don't believe in a abrahamic-like god that created the earth and cares so much about us that he spends his time answering (or not) our prayers and interferes in human affairs with horrifically savage results.

      I think, as Sam Harris does, that humanity has a spiritual side, although very little real research has been done to truly examine that part of the human condition.

      Religion will not die within my lifetime, nor the lifetimes of anyone alive today, in my opinion, but it WILL die, assuming that we eventually get to where humanity provides some form of universal public education.

      Humanism has a group of tenets that are meant to put in place some sort of a basis for living life with a balance between self-interest, a concern for one's family, friends and culture, and a wholesome concern for humanity at large.

      No doubt, all the different cultures around the world will each make their own way down that path as they mature and become educated and industrialized.

      But on the other hand, religion, while yes, being a guide and a light of good for those who see it that way, unfortunately, also offers an alternative version of reality. That version allows for some truly anti-social behavior, and is what those atheists that want confrontation are against.

      If religion only could be interpreted in a good way, that would be one thing, but humanity has been controlled, for millennia, by some form of theist or another that have demanded obedience, deference and, oh, yes, money, for little more than a hope that the afterlife would offer a better existence than the hard-scrabble life most of humanity has had to endure.

      That, I think is my own opinion, that religion in its current form of organization (mostly) has been patterned after a system that medieval (and older) cultures have used to actually control their people from cradle to grave. It is based upon documents that have little or no actual proven provenance, almost universally being older than dirt and almost all copied and changed so much over time that nobody really knows what they said in their original form.

      If religion was something that people could use in a personal way to explore their own personal nature, without needing to declare allegiance to some outside organization, that was taught, not through indoctrination, but by teaching us each to explore and examine our own needs, wants, desires and nature, then I wouldn't complain much at all.

      It's when religion tries to use us for its own ends, which is inevitably to gain power, money and influence that I and others see where it is not good for society, but actually bad for it.

      Spiritualism is about seeking answers, without knowing what they are before you start. It is a lot like the approach taken in science. Religion, on the other hand, HAS all the answers, written in their little books.

    • 2 years ago
  • hpseaton
  • metalcookiesxy70
  • ochreRobot
  • rwahrens
  • tangibleparadox
more from Community:
from the community

top videos