Continuing my series on the top three criticisms of this or of that, here's one on atheism. Hint: among those three isn't the claim that theism can be proven true.
As a nontheist, my biggest gripe with theism - Christianity specifically - isn't that it is irrational since, as you pointed out, the entire human endeavor is - strictly speaking - not rational. Everyone who isn't an utter nihilist lives by & through myths; the problem I see with theists is that they don't recognize their myth for what it is.
As a teenager I was very interested in other religions & one of them that I researched pretty thoroughly was the neo-pagan movement. I was fascinated by the idea that there were people around who still believed in Zeus & Aphrodite until I realized that no, neo-pagans are not like Christians: they don't take their myths literally. For neo-pagans, the gods are relatable personifications of the forces of nature, which is what they really venerate. It doesn't take even a mustard seed's worth of faith to believe in the sun. If Christians could just acknowledge that their religion is a myth that helps them live a meaningful life & relate to the non-human part of the universe, they would have my respect. If that was how Christianity was taught to me when I was a kid, I would likely still be a Christian.
I can't be sure of it, but I suspect that Christianity's literalism is what most atheists truly object to. Notice that most of them don't go out of their way to attack equally irrational religions like Wicca or Hinduism. Though this might be because Christianity is still the dominant religion in the western world. Thoughts?
Well, what you're calling "literalism" is just theism. The neo-pagans are like the satanists, such as Marilyn Manson, who are really just atheists having fun with a social club or secret society with its symbols and rituals. So you'd be respecting only the religionists who are atheists, who don't actually believe in gods or the supernatural.
When you say the problem is that certain theists don't recognize their myths for what they are (fictions), I think you're getting at the deeper problem of how religions had to adapt to the success of modern science, by becoming implicitly scientistic. The idea is that only rational methods could supply us with worthwhile knowledge, so religious myths had to be comparable to scientific textbooks. Thus, the myths were read as providing (merely) literal, factual, natural truth as opposed to any transcendent kind. God was implicitly naturalized as a thing that exists like a rock or a tree.
There's all kinds of confusion wrapped up in that evolution of theism, which I've written about. For example, I like how I deal with this in "The Irrelevance of All Philosophical Proofs of God."
Many (though not all) pagans are definitely atheists, but I don't think an anagogic approach to Christianity needs to be atheistic. Many of the Bible's narratives were obviously written as allegories by people who, though they didn't believe in talking snakes & magical fruit, likely did believe in God. What I'm saying is that I can respect someone who looks at the universe & concludes that some intelligence (God) must be behind it; but I can't respect adults who believe in talking snakes & donkeys & a supreme being who acts like a spoiled toddler.
It's true that Christianity has become more literalistic as scientific knowledge progresses, which is actually quite baffling since science refutes a literalistic interpretation of much of the Bible. It would actually make more sense for Christians to insist that the book is mythology rather than history so that their religion could continue to be respectable. Taking the Bible literally really robs it of all its relevance. If someone reads a book of Aesop's fables & concludes that lower animals can speak & reason like humans, then he's not only stupid, but hasn't really understood a word of what he's read.
When fundamentalists dig in their heals and insist their scriptural myths are literally true, it's like a child stubbornly refusing to admit he's been outmaneuvered by adults or otherwise overtaken by events. The Enlightenment made ancient monotheism obsolete, not just intellectually but politically, at least for the most part. It's hard to admit defeat, though, when you're heavily invested in something.
As a nontheist, my biggest gripe with theism - Christianity specifically - isn't that it is irrational since, as you pointed out, the entire human endeavor is - strictly speaking - not rational. Everyone who isn't an utter nihilist lives by & through myths; the problem I see with theists is that they don't recognize their myth for what it is.
ReplyDeleteAs a teenager I was very interested in other religions & one of them that I researched pretty thoroughly was the neo-pagan movement. I was fascinated by the idea that there were people around who still believed in Zeus & Aphrodite until I realized that no, neo-pagans are not like Christians: they don't take their myths literally. For neo-pagans, the gods are relatable personifications of the forces of nature, which is what they really venerate. It doesn't take even a mustard seed's worth of faith to believe in the sun. If Christians could just acknowledge that their religion is a myth that helps them live a meaningful life & relate to the non-human part of the universe, they would have my respect. If that was how Christianity was taught to me when I was a kid, I would likely still be a Christian.
I can't be sure of it, but I suspect that Christianity's literalism is what most atheists truly object to. Notice that most of them don't go out of their way to attack equally irrational religions like Wicca or Hinduism. Though this might be because Christianity is still the dominant religion in the western world. Thoughts?
Well, what you're calling "literalism" is just theism. The neo-pagans are like the satanists, such as Marilyn Manson, who are really just atheists having fun with a social club or secret society with its symbols and rituals. So you'd be respecting only the religionists who are atheists, who don't actually believe in gods or the supernatural.
DeleteWhen you say the problem is that certain theists don't recognize their myths for what they are (fictions), I think you're getting at the deeper problem of how religions had to adapt to the success of modern science, by becoming implicitly scientistic. The idea is that only rational methods could supply us with worthwhile knowledge, so religious myths had to be comparable to scientific textbooks. Thus, the myths were read as providing (merely) literal, factual, natural truth as opposed to any transcendent kind. God was implicitly naturalized as a thing that exists like a rock or a tree.
There's all kinds of confusion wrapped up in that evolution of theism, which I've written about. For example, I like how I deal with this in "The Irrelevance of All Philosophical Proofs of God."
https://medium.com/@benjamincain8/the-irrelevance-of-all-philosophical-proofs-of-god-1ad36a72aa82?source=friends_link&sk=c4104aa9eaf25227bd86969d17e6e460
Many (though not all) pagans are definitely atheists, but I don't think an anagogic approach to Christianity needs to be atheistic. Many of the Bible's narratives were obviously written as allegories by people who, though they didn't believe in talking snakes & magical fruit, likely did believe in God. What I'm saying is that I can respect someone who looks at the universe & concludes that some intelligence (God) must be behind it; but I can't respect adults who believe in talking snakes & donkeys & a supreme being who acts like a spoiled toddler.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that Christianity has become more literalistic as scientific knowledge progresses, which is actually quite baffling since science refutes a literalistic interpretation of much of the Bible. It would actually make more sense for Christians to insist that the book is mythology rather than history so that their religion could continue to be respectable. Taking the Bible literally really robs it of all its relevance. If someone reads a book of Aesop's fables & concludes that lower animals can speak & reason like humans, then he's not only stupid, but hasn't really understood a word of what he's read.
When fundamentalists dig in their heals and insist their scriptural myths are literally true, it's like a child stubbornly refusing to admit he's been outmaneuvered by adults or otherwise overtaken by events. The Enlightenment made ancient monotheism obsolete, not just intellectually but politically, at least for the most part. It's hard to admit defeat, though, when you're heavily invested in something.
Delete