Arguments against Militant Atheism
Posted by John on January 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm · 25 Comments
Horia wrote a comment critical of my recent shout out to Atheists and Agnostics Who Go to Church. I am grateful for Horia’s direct honesty, and want to give this person’s arguments careful consideration. Rather than burying my response in the comments, I’d like to elevate it to post status because a) I want to encourage more discussion between militant atheists and tolerant atheists, and b) Horia’s approach represents the more visible style of atheist engagement with believers, and while we may share some similar objectives, I think that in the long term, this onslaught of “all religion bad” is a tactical blunder.
The main points of Horia’s argument are:
- All “Organized religion is harmful” and “a disease.”
- “Religious institutions must be questioned at every oportunity [sic], (or accepted fully if you are a theist).”
- “Middle ground is just the cowardly easy way out.”
- “Generalization is a must in this fight.”
I respectfully disagree with every point. It’s the binary, black or white, either this or that nature of Horia’s argument that I object to (ironically, this is similar to what I object to in dogmatic religious thinking and argumentation). I believe that this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the following:
- How theists become atheists: It’s a process. A few may have moments of epiphany or crisis that transform their belief into unbelief overnight, but most have their faith eroded slowly over time by personal experience and rational argument. Horia’s argument suggests that it’s more like flipping a switch–you’re believe in God one moment, and you don’t in the next. This leaves no room for questioning believers to go through the process of deconversion. It also ignores the fact that a entire cognitive framework may have to be unraveled (and possibly replaced), not just belief in God.
- Church-going doubters are embedded in a social context: Horia argues that going to church because your partner goes is “cowardly” and akin to “blackmail.” Let’s ignore for a moment that this is based on the faulty argument that “all religion is harmful” and therefore any support of religion trumps other decisions in ones life (like working through faith differences in a marriage or family). This uncompromising attitude again leaves no room for process and the diversity of relationships out there. I became an atheist years before Jana did. It was a long and painful struggle for us to work out our differences, to renegotiate our marriage, to calm her fears about the children. Eventually, she began questioning religion herself. If I immediately invoked Horia’s attitude, I might not be married today. Instead, we ended up leaving Mormonism as a family. The long wait was worth it.
- Not all atheists believe that all religion is harmful: Horia’s argument is based in large part on the assumption that because all religion is bad, extending even the slightest support (especially in the form of church attendance) is unethical. Prove that religion is not a universal social bane, and the entire argument falls apart. Exhibits include recent American Evangelical attempts to fight global poverty, to provide vaccines to fight AIDS and to get the word out about climate change. Among others is a recent petition in support of teaching evolution in the classroom that was signed by hundreds of prominent religious leaders. The liberal branch of the Religious Society of Friends (with which I affiliate) is an example of emphasizing the best in religion: it has the strength of centuries of tradition with little of the hierarchy or dogma. My own Quaker meeting is a community based on shared values (e.g., pacifism and radical egalitarianism) and practice (including meditation and social activism), not on doctrine or hierarchy.
Horia and I agree on one thing: religion should not be immune from criticism. Arguments against religion, however, need to be careful, well-supported and nuanced enough to reflect reality if they are to be effective. Generalizations are too easily dismissed. Also, I could be wrong, but I feel that skeptical arguments from within or from the edges of faith encourage more critical thinking among believers than dogmatic grenades lobbed from deep within atheist-land.
One last thing: Horia attacked the middle way as “the cowardly easy way out.” I don’t think that it is for the church-going atheist and agnostic friends to whom I dedicated the original post. Having left family (for Mormonism) and then Mormonism (for atheist Quakerism), I have to say that my experience doesn’t mesh with Horia’s words. Leaving is a relief. It is a tremendous burden to work daily to navigate most religious communities as an unbeliever and to try to balance being true to one’s self with preservation of cherished relationships. That, my friend, takes courage and continuous effort.
Tags: Atheism · Doubt · Getting over Religion
