Posted by Jason on: 07.21.2008 /
In life we make a lot of assumptions. I’m not keen on that old management training axiom that assume makes an ass out of u and me. It’s an oversimplification and it denies the very many benefits that making assumptions can have in life. I assume that I’m not going to fall down a well on my way to work and that allows me to leave the climbing gear at home, I assume I’ll need a computer as I work in IT so I take my laptop with me even though some days I don’t switch it on, I assume the trains will be running so I walk to the train station rather than get a bus or drive to work. Sometimes my assumptions are proven wrong (particularly about the trains, but never so far about the well) and this can be enlightening and life enhancing as well as embarrassing and annoying. Some assumptions about Christians and atheists show this to good effect.
The Christian church began life within the Roman Empire. Early Christians enjoyed many freedoms in religion as a result of Roman rule but also some issues of conformity. The state demanded certain core moral values but the early Christians suffered from three widespread stereotypes: Christians practiced atheism; Christians practiced cannibalism; and Christians practiced incest. How’s that for making assumptions?
I always had my suspicions about Christians you know. ;)
How could these absurd ideas have come about?
Atheism
Christians believe in one God to the exclusion of all other gods. Romans saw this as a threat to the pantheon of the Roman gods. Christians could afford to offend them and bring the divine wrath of Jupiter upon the entire Roman Empire. Roman citizens could use this excuse to persecute Christians and try to limit their ungodsly influence.
Athenagoras explained, in his Plea for Christians, the charge of atheism was untrue. Christians believe in one supreme God. They were not the polytheists of the accepted state religion but that did not make them worthy of eradication. He argued that by devoting themselves steadfastly to their God they were upholding a religious value that the Romans encouraged, that of piety.
You’ve heard it said that Romans who lived by the motto, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” but they also viewed death as “a deep sleep and a forgetting”. Athenagoras put forward the idea that Christians sought to live moral lives on earth in light of an eternal afterlife. By living a moral life a Christian was an asset to the empire.
Atheists have no such claim of piety. Instead we claim the same level of morality as those with faith, reasoning that morality is not dependent on religion but on upbringing and empathy.
Cannibalism
This charge still crops up in arguments against Roman Catholicism but must have been taken more seriously by the Roman Empire. Christians eat the body and drink the blood of their Lord. Rumours of a literal devouring of human flesh abounded and even reached the level of absurdity in tales of Christians eating babies.
Sound familiar? Anyone who reads The Friendly Atheist will be aware of the running joke about atheists eating babies. At least Christians have some convoluted claim to this rumour but atheists have none. The assumption was, of course, based on a false understanding of actual practices.
Incest
The charge of incest was a misinterpretation of Christian language. Christians would refer to one another as Brother or Sister and yet would marry one another. Non-Christians couldn’t separate the biological siblings from the idea of spiritual siblings. Indeed there existed legal restrictions until relatively recently on marrying the former spouse of your sibling on grounds of incest. Yet another problem with semantics.
Atheists who debate religion are well aware of the problems with semantics. There are things in Christian terminology that simply have no parallel outside of religion. Blessings, prayer, scripture, God’s Will, the soul, heaven, hell, these are just the tip of the semantic iceberg.
Athenagoras responded to the false perceptions with honest and humble explanations. He attempted to portray true Christianity as a constructive force for good. His beliefs and the beliefs of the group that he chose to represent where successful after a time. Rome officially adopted Christianity as it’s religion in 380 AD, a mere 203 years after Plea for Christians was written.
Atheism today
In the 21st century we have authors like Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris who, while I view their arguments as accurate and worthwhile, do not portray atheism as a force for good. Rather they seek to tear down a system that they see negatively. As a force for scientific stagnation and social harm. They aren’t wrong to do so, not in my opinion anyway, but they don’t build anything. They don’t say that atheism can be a force for good just that religion can sometimes fail at being a force for good. Well, no surprises there.
How can we go about promoting atheism as a force for good? The first big sticking point is that atheism isn’t a religion or a social movement at all. It isn’t a force for anything because it isn’t a force. Atheists do have a few things in common though beyond a lack of belief in gods and our stunningly good looks. In general we accept scientific or naturalist explanations for events. We accept that unusual events will occur with some frequency in a large population as a matter of statistical probability. We accept that being wrong is part and parcel of a persons growth and development.
Slightly less general is that atheists tend to be politically liberal. That we tend to see all sides of an issue and take the side of the most rational and most beneficial to all. We tend to be open minded and accepting of different philosophies…except for those we view as damaging. And there lies the problem. We disagree wildly on what we see as damaging. Is “In God we Trust” on currency damaging? Is failing to treat sickness with medicine in favour of prayer intervention damaging? Is teaching a child about hellfire and damnation damaging? Are limits of marriage for homosexuals damaging? Are the 10 Commandments in court rooms damaging? The list goes on…and on…and on.
Some atheists choose to take a positive stance on our lack of faith and self identify as secular humanists or perhaps something else like the Brights movement. As a philosophy it has much to say for itself. It is peaceful, honest and accepting, broad enough to allow for a wide variety of views but narrow enough to be defined.
It’s attractive as a positive force for good because secular humanism is ethical. Just as early Christianity had to work to put forward the view of Christians as constructive members of society who didn’t eat babies or marry their sisters secular humanism works for the same goal.
Secular humanism has seven tenets that describe a world view. These are:
Over the next two or three months I plan to intersperse my usual nonsensical blog entries with some further explanations of the secular humanist tenets and how they apply to me. I hope that I’ll be able to show that the majority of the secular humanist views are compatible with mainstream Christianity. I’m cross posting this with the Friendly Christian site as the readers don’t tend to be the same.
Leave a Reply