Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 10.02.2006 /
On page 3 of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes:
Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind. There are many people who know, in their heart of hearts, that they are atheists, but dare not admit it to their families or even, in some cases, to themselves. Partly this is because the very word ‘atheist’ has been assiduously built up as a terrible and frightening label.
I understand Dawkins not wanting atheists to feel ashamed of what they are and not wanting them to be apologetic.
What do you think of the idea that atheists should be proud of being atheists? Should Christians encourage each other to be proud of being Christians?
Comment by: Marty
1I am not much drawn to the word(s) pride/proud for either being Christian or Atheist. I also see no need or value in being apologetic - whether you are Christian or Atheist.
I am more drawn to words like being comfortable or fulfilled in what we do.
I know that it is not my label that brings me fulfillment, but it is in my best moments when who I am manifests in doing something good (MTWABP) - that I feel fulfilled and probably even proud. But that is an inner sense of pride - not an outward projection of pride - which in many cases I find repulsive.
Comment by: Karen
2We should all be proud of who we are and what we’re doing with our lives (assuming we’re doing something worthwhile, of course!) ;-) I would say that goes for Christians, atheists, Muslims and any other variety of belief or nonbelief.
I was taught by the FE church to be allergic to the word “pride” or the idea of being “proud of myself.” We were supposed to watch for signs of pride and stamp them out if we found them in our hearts. It’s still difficult for me to say and think: “I’m proud of myself.”
I think Dawkins’ is reacting specifically there to the negative trappings that have been attached the word “atheist” - as in, “dirty atheist,” “crooked atheist” “blasphemous” etc. There’s no reason to feel ashamed for not believing, is his point.
A lot of Christians have doctrinal teaching against taking pride in themselves or their work. But I think if they’re doing wonderful things for others, and for their families and themselves, they should be justifiably proud and not afraid to voice that.
Comment by: NCxian
3I’ve not experienced FE Christianity from the inside, so I don’t really know what it was about the way your particular group talked about pride that you found unhealthy, Karen. I would say that the conversation that I have had within Christian circles has tied “pride” to selfishness and greed. (Me, Me, Me, it’s all about me). One of the most desirable elements of Christianity in my experience has been encouragement to step outside oneself (you know, that love-your-neighbor thing!). To the extent that pride means the opposite of that, I am appreciative of efforts to set pride aside.
My suspicion is that we are having some semantic difficulties, and if we could get to what we really mean, we might find we agree to a great extent. I think that is where Marty is going with choosing words he prefers more.
Comment by: Karen
4In my FE Christian experience, “pride” means taking credit for anything oneself, rather than “giving god all the glory.” So I have friends who, when you compliment them deservedly on a job well done, cannot stand up and say, “Thanks! I worked very hard on that and I’m proud of the job I did.” Instead, they must say (and think, ostensibly), “Oh, I didn’t do anything. I’m just glad that the lord worked through me. Praise god.”
Taking personal credit for yourself or your work is a sin. There’s not a separation, in other words, between pride as healthy self-esteem and pride as “puffed up,” pompous, self-righteous haughtiness.
I agree that the latter is repulsive; however I now think the former is healthy and should be embraced.
Comment by: NCxian
5Karen, do you think that their inability to recognize a good kind of pride might come from an over-emphasis on the “fallen” nature of humans (therefore, people can’t do anything good to be proud of), and an under-emphasis the “made in God’s image” nature of humans? It seems to me that these two views of human nature are kind of the opposite ends of a spectrum along which Christians fall. I am thinking that more legalistic Christians are more likely to focus on “fallen”, whereas more generous ones are likely to focus on “image of God”. But I am still thinking . . .
Comment by: Ir
6NCxian, if I may respond, I do think some conservative Christians over-emphasize the ‘fallenness’ of man and under-emphasize the ‘made in the image of God’ aspect of man.
Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, not instead of yourself. I don’t think Jesus ever encouraged self-hate.
Comment by: Karen
7Good question, NC. I think that might be part of it. The fallen nature of humanity certainly was emphasized. On the other hand, “God don’t make no junk!” ;-) (Sorry, I always found that bumpersticker really annoying!)
Frankly, from a nonbeliever’s viewpoint, I think what may have happened is that pastors started to run out of Big Sins they could preach against until “pride” became almost the last “politically correct” Big Sin that no one can argue with (at least inside the conservative church).
For instance, drunkenness used to be a Big Sin. Until we figured out that it’s a genetically influenced, physical addiction that’s better remedied through treatment than condemnation.
And gluttony used to be condemned - until the U.S. got super-sized. ;-) And immorality used to be a Big Sin, but sex before marriage is so common now that railing against it labels the pastor a prude.
Pride can still be made to sound so odious, especially if it’s always presented in the pompous-ass variety, that it’s kind of become the Big Sin du jour. But that’s just my twisted theory. ;-)
Comment by: NCxian
8The main guy at our non-FE church still preaches against gluttony, which kind of pisses me off! He is a rail thin guy who tends toward ascetism. I say, God made food taste good for a reason. The Jesus I find in the Bible was a partier! (Yeah, I know, he can find the ascetic Jesus there too–but I’m not above a little proof-texting in the interest of a good meal ;) )
Comment by: Ir
9I didn’t hear preaching about gluttony much but I did hear plenty against pre-marital sex. There hasn’t been any change there in the churches I went to.
NCxian, it annoys me too when thin people are judgmental about others who have food issues.
Comment by: Marty
10It is interesting how what is preached about can be so selective.
The Bible is extremely clear relative to Divorce and Adultry (adultry in the Bible includes those who divorce and then marry someone else - or even if they have never been married - but married someone divorced)- but how much is preached on these subjects in Churches? How much would these same churches loose financially if the divorce/adulterers in their congregation quit giving?
Many of these same churches that say nothing about Divorce/Adultry rail against homosexuality - based on some obscure versus that they then interpret in ways that they think validate their right to preach against homosexuals.
A Divorced Person Who Has Married A Divorcee and now is a Adulterous Sinner!
Comment by: Ir
11It sure is.
Comment by: Steph
12Marty,
Is this your position or an example of a hard and fast rule in the Bible? I have to say that it is not that cut and dry. For instance, if you are a Christian wife who is left by a husband who is either a non-Christian or someone on the way out of following Jesus, the Bible says to let them go, but not to leave them. If that is so, if he remarries (if Christian) he is an adulterer but the wife who was the victim of a divorce she didn’t want is not an adultress. So even your clear-as-a-bell rule is not that cut and dry. I could say so much more than that, but I think it is sufficient for now :)