Posted by Josh on: 03.12.2008 /
First things first. I’m a Christian. In my conversation with Lawrence, my newfound atheist friend I’ve come to understand that there are differences between us. I’ve also come to understand through our conversations that there are many similarities between us. What is perhaps the most interesting phenomenon however, is that I have come to realize we share a similar difference in common.
This sounds kind of strange so let me explain. As a Christian living in the United States, I have been under the assumption that I am a Christian living in a secular world as the minority. Society as a whole pushes away from my worldview, understanding of relationships, view of self, responsibility to “creation” and community and many other things. My paradigm has brought me to an understanding that my choice to be a follower of Christ has put me in the “moral minority” rather than the “moral majority.”
However, my conversations with Lawrence have led me to an understanding that he, like me, sees himself in a minority position as an atheist. I can see his perspective. Statistically, he’s got a point. There are way fewer professing atheists in the U.S. than professing Christians. Many atheists (please correct me if I’m wrong, as I do not assume to be an expert) see themselves living in a sea of Christian values, fighting against the undercurrents of the “Moral Majority” (as in Jerry Falwell’s group).
What Lawrence and I have in common, therefore, is a similar difference. We both feel like we are a minority group swimming against the current of our belief system/worldview. The question that I’ve been pondering for the past few days, then, is what does this mean for our conversations, and how do we get over the gulf between us? As a Christian, I see the secularization of society. For Lawrence, he sees the ever present Christian overtones to the world he lives in. Do our completely different views of our role in society make it hard to understand where the other is coming from?
I think the answer to this question maybe yes. I’ve become more open to understanding Lawrence’s perspective, and because of this it has forced me to move myself closer to the center, and see myself as a larger and more integrated part of the whole community rather than a marginalized minority. Part of coming together in conversation is not simply learning about the other, but finding a more true understanding for your own place in terms of a different perspective.
Comment by: Pseudonym
1Allow me to respectfully suggest that you are both wrong, and yet both right. You’re both in a minority: you’re both smart people in a dumb world.
Comment by: Jason
2The majority are probably indifferent.
Let me explain. I was enjoying a drink with my old friend, Shane, the other night and mentioned Off the Map. He expressed surprise that I was an atheist (although it’s no secret) and told me that he believed in “something” but wasn’t sure what. He’d never really thought about it. The answer was not important enough to consider in his world view but the hope for something better remained.
Now, there is nothing wrong with that. I’d rather be surrounded by indifferent agnostics than the likes of Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps.
The more I discuss religion and atheism with people, the more I see this lack of interest. It isn’t as if people believe or don’t believe but it is simply that faith never really comes into their lives. I’m putting “faith” apart from church attendance and the trappings of faith because these are rituals that can be performed without engaging in belief.
People may be willing to put forward a belief in God when it suits them. Perhaps to strengthen their argument, moral viewpoint or to judge another. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are true believers. Hope for an afterlife is different from belief in an afterlife.
In that respect you are probably both in a minority. Any strong view would be.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
3Thanks for sharing this, Josh.
Was it a surprise to learn that Lawrence feels very much in a minority?
Before you realized that did you assume that since the US is ’secularized’ (from your point of view), atheists would feel more comfortable than Christians?
Do you think any of the reasons Lawrence feels in a minority are reasons why you do - is there any overlap?
For example, I posted a link to the ’stuff white people like’ on my blog recently. This blog parodies the behavior of people who care a lot about appearance and status. If this is typical of US society, then in theory, an atheist who doesn’t care about these things would feel in a minority for exactly the same reasons as a Christian who doesn’t - right? So, it’s possible that atheist and Christians could both feel alienated for some of the same reasons?
I’m not trying to say Christians and atheists are the same - I’m just curious about whether all the values that cause atheists and Christians to feel in a minority are exclusively ‘atheist’ and ‘Christian’. I suspect not.
Comment by: Josh
4I think that, at least from a Christian perspective that we have been taught to fit our experience into our doctrine, even if it doesn’t necessarily fit. Our theology has been systematic, attempting to come us with impenetrable truths that then must be applied to our ordinary lives. I remember taking a class on “telling my conversion story” and being given an equation to fit my story into (”I’m a sinner,” Jesus died and forgave me, and now life is awesome.). We had come up with theological truisms and were trying to put our stories into those.
What I really appreciate now is the focus on experiential narrative as a part of our understanding of faith and belief. In the previous example, I can say, “You know what, for me becoming a follower of Jesus, “sin” was not the major issue. Sure I need forgiveness, but it wasn’t my main reason for belief.”
This may seem like a tangent to your original quote, but what I’m trying to convey is that I thinkn the question of faith is moving from a theological “box” to fix our experiences in to rather an experiential spirituality in which faith is a part of.
Comment by: Josh
5You know, actually no. I think it may appear that way from some Christians perspective, but I fully appreciate that Christians don’t have the holy huddle on the topic of ethics and morality. What’s hard about this conversation is that it’s so hard to keep this from being a he said/she said on the issue of morality. Instead, it’s a question of position, power and influence. Although, Lawrence has mentioned several times that it quickly becomes an issue of morality, especially with fundamentalists. For example, Lawrence explained that as an atheist he has heard the Christian right blame them for the removal of “God from schools.” This is simply an unfair comment not simply because it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth, AND an unsolicited slam on a people group who weren’t the instigators of the legislation, BUT also because it is often paired with talk of the “moral decline of the nation.” For some Christians it’s black and white; “no prayer in schools = guns in schools.” “No prayer in schools = high abortion rates.” When you start to blame atheists for one thing and then connect it with another you vilify and marginalize a people group.
Comment by: Jason
6Josh, do you think that the rise of the public perception of Islamic extremism in recent years has led to a rise in Christian fundamentalism? Fundamentalist tend to reject outright the views of those who disagree with them. This is your ‘black and white’ thinking. An increase in fundamentalism has its own backlash as a rise in atheism as people reject one extreme. I’d hesitate to place atheism as an extremist attitude but it certainly isn’t a mainstream one. A society that see-saws between these two must have a central core of belief that rejects both in some form. I’m not calling you a fundy extremist but I could understand how an openly Christian person could attract this label without meaning to.
Comment by: Josh
7Jason-
Thanks for your post. You raise a very interesting point that hits close to home for me. I am a Christian in a culture which, like you mentioned, polarizes Christianity into one extremist block of people. For me, that sort of de facto labeling is kind of like calling all Germans Nazi’s - which I’m sure is NOT what you were saying in your comment. I say this to agree with you, and to say that as a Christian who is open, accepting, and reasonable, it makes me sad to think that other people think of me as a villian because I follow the life example and teachings of a man who devoted his life to love, acceptance, and fought the powers of extremism in his own day.
I think it’s unfair to say that Islamic extremism was the rise of Christian fundamentalism, without also asking whether or not Christian fundamentalism might have led to the rise of Islamic extremism. I think whatever position you might take, you have to also add an enmeshed American colonial market, which is neither Christian nor Muslim into the equation for the rise of such anger and suspicion on both sides.
I also wonder if connecting Atheism’s rise in popularity to the increase in fundamentalism is fair to the atheist position. Doesn’t that almost relativizes their position, rather than legitimate it. It makes it reactionary, rather than reasonable, which I think many atheists would find demeaning to their position. I was an art history major and I learned that most of the major movements in western art were reactions to the established theory and techniques of the time. Post-impressionism reacted against impressionism, which reacted against the classical salon. What defined the movement, however, was not their reaction, but their new paradigms. What do you think?
Comment by: Jason
8Josh, thanks for taking my comment in the way that I’d intended it. I certainly wasn’t trying to imply anything negative about anyone, just wondering if the perception of marginalisation is a reaction to something else.
You say it’s unfair to lay the blame on Islamic fundamentalism. I agree. Yet we have to start somewhere and each previous event has it’s own cause. American capitalism can be seen as a reaction of the Cold War. This, in turn, could be seen as a reaction to WWII, WWI, British colonialism and a whole mess of prior events going back forever. I picked Islamic fundamentalism because it’s very public and relatively recent.
I think that one factor in the rise of atheism is the increase in fundamentalism. The act of turning away from authority and questioning it may be a step towards atheism or to a different kind of faith. My own atheism was not a reaction of 9\11 but it certainly helped me to crystalize my opinions and to reassess many of my assumptions.
Comment by: Karen
9I think 9/11 was a turning point for a lot of nominal non-believers to reassess their theism and come out of the closet as atheists.
Comment by: Pseudonym
10Karen:
It was also a turning point for a lot of non-believers to turn into anti-thests.
In general, I think that this event turned a lot of people in the middle into extremists, and this was encouraged on both sides. As of now, it’s hard to have a rational discussion on many topics because everyone has picked a side. Of all of the (non-life) damage caused by 9/11, this will probably be the longest lasting effect and hardest to undo.
Jason:
As W.H. Auden put it:
My good friend Rowland Croucher put it even more succinctly:
Comment by: Jason
11Pseudonym, closer to home for me was the Northern Ireland problem. One side killed someone on the other so they retaliated, they retaliated back, etc. This went on for a quarter of a century. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is even worse.
I can see nothing wrong with two people from different sides of an issue taking time to discuss the issue. Even when the actual issue remains unresolved (as in the faith\non-faith debate) then both sides get a learn something about the other. It’s harder to hate something that you understand.
“You mean, you’ll put down your rock and I’ll put down my sword and we’ll try and kill each other like civilized people?” - The Princess Bride
Comment by: Karen
12Interesting point. You may be right!
Comment by: Lawrence
13I know this is a bit late but I figured spending time with my fiancee was more crucial since I hadn’t seen her in a couple weeks.
In part what we see is reactionary, such as the so-called “new atheists,” though I would hesitate to call their position any more inflammatory than the works of the Baron D’Holbach, Thomas Hobbes, and many other historical thinkers, other than they can actually publicize their work. However, this is a small number of people though many more are willing to speak out when they feel it is necessitated but speaking up and anti-theism are two very different things.
Could September 11th have played a part? Certainly, but I would hesitate to say it was a catalyst for changing belief to unbelief. Instead, I would say that it may have been more of a reaction to the increased diatribes against the “evils of the world” and their only “logical” source, atheists. Many atheists that I know, and I felt the same, that they were tired of atheist being a bad word, thrown around to pinpoint the evil boogeyman that caused all of the bad things everyday. Despite possible ostracism, many of my friends also felt that to point out that they too were an atheist would make their religious family and friends realize that the boogeyman was only that.
Has there been a rise in anti-theism? Maybe, but I am curious if it is a rise in anti-theism or if it is a rise in mediums where people espousing anti-theistic views have access. I have met very few atheists who are anti-theistic. Instead, if they are anti-anything it is anti-fundamentalist but they do not have a problem with a majority of Christians or other religions.
However, Durkheim thought that to go against the society was wrong and an affront to society. When you step out against the majority (real or perceived) you are then cast as going against the grain and undermining the system. In the case of atheists, people perceive us as being non-believers therefore we must be also anti-theistic because we don’t hold any god beliefs and since it is widely held as a venerated position that we do not follow, then we are by default in opposition of the system.
Durkheim was too confident that the system was right by its virtue of belonging to the people and justice would come by the same way. Appearances are everything and if you want to kill a stereotype, you have to step out of the shadows and make people realize that what they hold to be true may not be and that it is time for them to reevaluate the problems they and the world face. Not just for atheists, but Christians as well.
ljp