Enlightenism - a blessing or a curse?
Steve sent me a link to the following article: http://www.sundayherald.com/58809
Muriel Gray echoes many of the concerns that I have recently discussed with friends. In particular, she highlights the issue that whilst I am expected to respect the faith of my fellow humans, they are under no social obligation to respect my atheism as a valid philosophy of life. Nonetheless, it is not religion that I find offensive, but the lack of respect that religious followers sometimes demonstrate for my beliefs. And I doubt that my atheism offends them unless it is associated with disrespect for their faith and customs.
Nonetheless, atheism does often appear as puzzling to those of faith. Occasionally, it generates fascination and excitement at the prospect of understanding my 'atheist spirituality'. Sometimes I am subjected to intensive questioning to discover what is 'missing' in my life. At others, my atheism is considered almost synonymous with decadent immorality and I am irredemiably condemned.
No doubt this simplistic misunderstanding of atheism is our fault. We've failed to communicate our belief system appropriately to others. And Muriel Gray is right to address this point by describing it.
But is enlightenism a good idea? Do we need Enlightenism with a capital 'E', a social movement, a collectivity? I tend to shy away from labels as I never feel that I can fully identify with them. But do we - morally responsible atheists who believe in questioning and challenging all forms of knowledge, including social dogma - need to create a collective 'us' so that our beliefs can be explained and represented?
If so, it's a sad world that we live in: a world where to beat the lobbyists, you have to join them, albeit in a different rank.
On the other hand, maybe such a strategy would create additional divisions between atheists and those of faith and as such prove counter-productive. Or perhaps it is simply unachievable: those who question everything are programmed to notice the differences even amongst those in their own group, and are likely to feel uncomfortable with so-called but imperfect representation.
Perhaps compromise depends on the person spearheading the movement. Does such a leader exist? Someone who believes deeply in and is passionate about our values, who can present them in a positive light without reacting defensively or condemning others. Someone who can communicate effectively that identifying the word 'atheism' with notions of immorality or lack of belief in anything can be considered offensive to some, but without allowing their own language to carry the negative undertones of 'superstition' and 'mythology' that are so offensive to others ...
Muriel Gray echoes many of the concerns that I have recently discussed with friends. In particular, she highlights the issue that whilst I am expected to respect the faith of my fellow humans, they are under no social obligation to respect my atheism as a valid philosophy of life. Nonetheless, it is not religion that I find offensive, but the lack of respect that religious followers sometimes demonstrate for my beliefs. And I doubt that my atheism offends them unless it is associated with disrespect for their faith and customs.
Nonetheless, atheism does often appear as puzzling to those of faith. Occasionally, it generates fascination and excitement at the prospect of understanding my 'atheist spirituality'. Sometimes I am subjected to intensive questioning to discover what is 'missing' in my life. At others, my atheism is considered almost synonymous with decadent immorality and I am irredemiably condemned.
No doubt this simplistic misunderstanding of atheism is our fault. We've failed to communicate our belief system appropriately to others. And Muriel Gray is right to address this point by describing it.
But is enlightenism a good idea? Do we need Enlightenism with a capital 'E', a social movement, a collectivity? I tend to shy away from labels as I never feel that I can fully identify with them. But do we - morally responsible atheists who believe in questioning and challenging all forms of knowledge, including social dogma - need to create a collective 'us' so that our beliefs can be explained and represented?
If so, it's a sad world that we live in: a world where to beat the lobbyists, you have to join them, albeit in a different rank.
On the other hand, maybe such a strategy would create additional divisions between atheists and those of faith and as such prove counter-productive. Or perhaps it is simply unachievable: those who question everything are programmed to notice the differences even amongst those in their own group, and are likely to feel uncomfortable with so-called but imperfect representation.
Perhaps compromise depends on the person spearheading the movement. Does such a leader exist? Someone who believes deeply in and is passionate about our values, who can present them in a positive light without reacting defensively or condemning others. Someone who can communicate effectively that identifying the word 'atheism' with notions of immorality or lack of belief in anything can be considered offensive to some, but without allowing their own language to carry the negative undertones of 'superstition' and 'mythology' that are so offensive to others ...
1 Comments:
I want to be the leader.
Some very similar thoughts here to the ones I had exactly one year ago in Washington, triggered by Nibbles' comment that the reason that Creationism is being taught in schools in the US is because there are very wealthy groups who lobby the government and so their agendas are implemented in exchange for money (what could possibly be the cause of their agendas is beyond me). He felt that our side needed similarly effective lobbying.
At the time I refused to agree to this because it is not my job to argue and pay money to persuade people that “1+1 = 2” in the light of people suggesting that “1+1 = 3”. However, I have since change my mind, partly inspired by Richard Dawkins’ excellent programs about religion which were on Channel 4 last year. If no one challenges religion then it will continue to be taught to our children who are genertically programmed to believe what authority figures – parents and teachers - tell them (because they do not have time to test every claim made for themselves (e.g. don’t stick your hand in fire or jump off a cliff – evolution realised this was not a feasible mechanism for discovering the world!).
The key point for me is that for morality to develop one does not need a religious mechanism. Morality developed because higher-order animals quickly worked out that if I agreed not to hurt you and you agreed not to hurt me we could all live in a much freer environment. This is why concepts of what is right and wrong differ between societies – they are not absolute truths, although within most human societies there is some commonality as to what is “right” and “wrong”. Reliance on the idea of a god and an afterlife to ensure that we do not kill each other is an insult to humanity.
Post a Comment
<< Home