Posted by Siamang on: 06.19.2007 /
By Siamang
Awhile back, before the current atheist bestsellers and before the phrase “The New Atheists” was coined, I asked “Is something happening?”
Well, if there was any doubt, it has happened. Lots of atheism books, and people are talking about it more and more. I’ve seen a number of commentaries on why this resurgance and what to do about it. Quite a number of the responses rail against the authors of these books as perpetrators of great insult, or of shallow thinkers writing way out of their depth. Some of those criticisms are well-founded. Yet the underlying reasons for atheism remain.
Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, notices this and writes in the Times.
There is a story told about the 1st-century Jewish teacher Yochanan ben Zakkai. A Roman challenged him about a Jewish ritual. Pure superstition, he said. Not so, said the rabbi, and gave him an answer that made sense in terms of his questioner’s beliefs. The Roman went away satisfied. But the rabbi’s disciples said: “You answered him. What will you answer us?”
That is the real question. Atheism does not come from nowhere. Agnosticism and indifference do; people drift, religion ceases to inspire, there are other things to do. Atheism is different. It is a form of protest. Something goes badly wrong in religious life, and people feel moved to write books saying, essentially, “Not in my name”. When that happens, mere apologetics is not enough. When the debate is over, something inside the believer’s soul refuses to stay silent. “You answered him. What will you answer us?”
…
For the great strength of religion is that it creates communities, and its great weakness is that it divides communities. The two go hand in hand. For every “us” there is a “them”, and the stronger the togetherness within, the deeper the estrangement without. What binds also separates. It always did.
The real battle, and it applies to secular and religious alike, is: can we love, not hate, the people not like us?
(My emphasis.)
-Siamang
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
1Nice. This reminds me - I think I read part of a book by the Chief Rabbi a while ago and was impressed.
Comment by: Keith
2Rabbi Sacks wrote a good article. I especially was glad to hear Richard Dawkins’ response to the article, specifically this intro:
While RD is hardly soft on Sacks for not facing the scientific implausibility of God, he at least gives him both respect and praise for recognizing the dangers of religion. It’s good to see RD seeking common ground and asking the readers of his blog to do the same. Very encouraging stuff … both by Sacks and Dawkins.
Comment by: Laura M.
3Thank you for telling us about this article Siamang.
I agree, this is the real battle. I would lke to hear more about appreciating diversity, rather than merely tolerating it.
Comment by: Julie Marie
4Blogs and discussion groups like this are a start. We can’t learn to love each other without first learning how to listen to each other.
Listen…understand…empathize…love.
I came to appreciate diversity (rather than just intellectually agreeing that it was a good idea in principle but difficult in practice) when I realized that listening to an “outsiders” viewpoint shed light on some of my blind spots. How can one ever learn they even have a blind spot if everyone they associate with has the same point of view?
Comment by: Laura M.
5Julie Marie,
I know exactly what you mean. I’ve changed my opinion on soooo many things in my life, once I was willing to admit there is more I don’t know than I do know.
And I didn’t learn that by hanging out with or only conversing with people who already agree with me.
Comment by: Stephan
6That central question is one that needs to be asked of all sides. I don’t see much love coming out of the “New Atheism”.
I think diversity of opinions is the key here. Where you have one dominant religious group you have theocracy and oppression. Where there are two dominant groups you have constant fighting (see Muslims and Jews in Israel, Sunnis and Shiites in the Middle East, Catholics and Protestants in Ireland). Where there is a diversity of opinions there is relative peace.
Some of you may not see it this way in the age the religious right, but I believe we currently have this peace in the US. While the right wing of the church has been dominant recently, there is a tempering that is happening even now from within the church and from without. Some of us here are part of that, but it is much bigger than us.
Hopefully the “New Atheism” can eventually move past the name-calling and finger-pointing and join those that are seeking peace rather than domination.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7Stephan wrote:
I agree - I think the Chief Rabbi did acknowledge that:
Comment by: Stephan
8Here is a similar article over at God’s politics written by Brian McLaren (my hero).
Comment by: Siamang
9Of course, that is a self-fullfilling definition, depending on who you call “New Atheists.”
Do you count Daniel Dennett? Julia Sweeney? Nica Lalli? Hemant Mehta?
Honestly, though, I think atheists are angry at ourselves as a group for rolling over and letting others define us and who we are for the past few decades. I think that’s what’s behind our calling ourselves “atheists” rather than “freethinkers” or “agnostics” or other words that apologize profusely for our own beliefs. In a free society, nobody can impose that kind of repression on a group from the outside. That’s some serious self-loathing going on. Atheists had just about convinced themselves that they shouldn’t use the A-word lest they offend or cause too much of a dust-up.
I think that’s what Rabbi Sacks is picking up on. There’s a lot of silent, invisible atheists out there who are deciding to be silent and invisible no more.
These books are a wake-up call to atheists. Now that our presence has been announced, will folks on all sides build on this moment and seek understanding, or merely man the barricades?
There have been positive overtures for faith/nonfaith dialogue from both sides. This blog, as small as it is, is a positive step. The O Project is another. I would like to see much, much more. Hemant’s book and Jim and Casper’s book are very good dialogue starters… but are religious people by and large taking part in that dialogue at all? How can we bring them into the dialogue?
Just look at the demographics here among posters. Off The Map is a Christian ministry and website, but the religious posters here are outnumbered by the atheists.
I’m trying to bring religious people into this dialogue, but I get the strong impression they don’t want to join in.
Comment by: Richard Wade
10To theists there are many underlying reasons for atheism. To atheists there is only one underlying reason.
“The New Atheism” is a catch phrase coined by some journalist who wanted to sell papers. Atheism is as old as religion. For every Shaman there has always been someone who didn’t buy into the scam. The only thing that is really new now is a sense of urgency. Atheists are only one of many categories of people who are waking up to the fact that each day more and more destructive energy is available to more and more people for killing more and more people who aren’t’ like them. Religious fanatics are now able to erase the lives of thousands in a single stroke. All the atheism books that Rabbi Sacks listed were written after 9/11.
Atheists have a deep dislike for the idea of dying in a conflict between two religions that they don’t believe in. Surely religious people can empathize with that. Atheists want to protect all people from such lunacy. The atheists I know are basically saying two things to religion: 1. You may no longer shun us, slander us, fire us, beat us or kill us; those days are over. 2. It is no longer acceptable for any religion to justify killing, or for anyone to pervert religion for the justification of killing; clean up your act and repudiate your own fanatics or all our days are over. And it won’t be the sick “end of days” fantasy, it will just be old-fashioned extinction.