"A passionate and committed atheism can be more religious than a weary or inadequate theism."
This quote stuck out to me as I read it months ago and various conversations I've had with friends since then has resulted in it coming back. I have a few thoughts based from this and I'm interested in hearing others comments, thoughts, views, or beliefs as well.
Those of us who believe in God often take the "moral high-ground" when compared to those who claim to be atheist or agnostic. We feel that our belief in God, whether complete or partial, is better than no belief. Armstrong's quote and spending two years of my life doing nothing but talking to people about religion makes me think this may not be the case. A person who does not believe in God but has taken the time and energy to search within their own selves and considers the world around them could have a greater claim to a so-called religious life than someone who claims a belief in God but has done so only partially or superficially with limited soul searching and limited introspection.
This might change depending on how one defines religion and religious belief. Assuming religious belief is measured by the dedication and passion and commitment toward an idea then atheism can be a stronger, more faithful and more religious than a simple vocal claim of faith in God by one who does not understand nor live by the tenants that such faith would require. In coming to understand how we view religion I found a definition by Clifford Geertz's work "Religion as a Cultural System" where he defines religion as "a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
Part of this thought process has resulted from various conversations with friends and strangers about religion where I discovered many people have extreme biases for or against God, for or against a particular religion, or for or against a particular sect within a religion. I tend to ask a lot of questions to try to understand the reason people feel one way or another and I discovered that frequently people didn't know why they believed what they did. They had not done their own personal soul searching, study, or pondering on the issue. In contrast, I have a friend who decided he no longer believed in Christianity in general and in the LDS faith in particular but he did not do so lightly. His introspective look at himself, his belief systems, his religious tenants, and his personal experiences led him to different conclusions, yet I can't help but admire him for the time and effort he put in to understanding himself and his relationship to the world and his beliefs. In many ways, his belief and his religiosity is stronger and better understood than many people I know who on the surface claim a belief in God but internally have failed to really understand what that even means. I don't necessarily agree with all of my friends conclusions, but I respect the process by which he came to them, and I respect his religious beliefs more than those who have not gone through their own soul-searching journey to understanding what and why they maintain a particular belief.
I realize a strong atheism is not the answer, nor is it what Armstrong is arguing (see quote above). What she wants is for others to understand that this is merely a check upon one's own theistic understanding and that a half-hearted belief in God does not constitute greater religiosity than an atheist simply because God is in the equation. In essence, this is a call to theists to take the necessary time to really believe in God and to understand the significance of what that belief means for how you understand life and how you live life.
-- Karen Armstrong, The History of God
This quote stuck out to me as I read it months ago and various conversations I've had with friends since then has resulted in it coming back. I have a few thoughts based from this and I'm interested in hearing others comments, thoughts, views, or beliefs as well.
Those of us who believe in God often take the "moral high-ground" when compared to those who claim to be atheist or agnostic. We feel that our belief in God, whether complete or partial, is better than no belief. Armstrong's quote and spending two years of my life doing nothing but talking to people about religion makes me think this may not be the case. A person who does not believe in God but has taken the time and energy to search within their own selves and considers the world around them could have a greater claim to a so-called religious life than someone who claims a belief in God but has done so only partially or superficially with limited soul searching and limited introspection.
This might change depending on how one defines religion and religious belief. Assuming religious belief is measured by the dedication and passion and commitment toward an idea then atheism can be a stronger, more faithful and more religious than a simple vocal claim of faith in God by one who does not understand nor live by the tenants that such faith would require. In coming to understand how we view religion I found a definition by Clifford Geertz's work "Religion as a Cultural System" where he defines religion as "a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
Part of this thought process has resulted from various conversations with friends and strangers about religion where I discovered many people have extreme biases for or against God, for or against a particular religion, or for or against a particular sect within a religion. I tend to ask a lot of questions to try to understand the reason people feel one way or another and I discovered that frequently people didn't know why they believed what they did. They had not done their own personal soul searching, study, or pondering on the issue. In contrast, I have a friend who decided he no longer believed in Christianity in general and in the LDS faith in particular but he did not do so lightly. His introspective look at himself, his belief systems, his religious tenants, and his personal experiences led him to different conclusions, yet I can't help but admire him for the time and effort he put in to understanding himself and his relationship to the world and his beliefs. In many ways, his belief and his religiosity is stronger and better understood than many people I know who on the surface claim a belief in God but internally have failed to really understand what that even means. I don't necessarily agree with all of my friends conclusions, but I respect the process by which he came to them, and I respect his religious beliefs more than those who have not gone through their own soul-searching journey to understanding what and why they maintain a particular belief.
I realize a strong atheism is not the answer, nor is it what Armstrong is arguing (see quote above). What she wants is for others to understand that this is merely a check upon one's own theistic understanding and that a half-hearted belief in God does not constitute greater religiosity than an atheist simply because God is in the equation. In essence, this is a call to theists to take the necessary time to really believe in God and to understand the significance of what that belief means for how you understand life and how you live life.
1 comment:
Nate -
Long time no talk, but I liked your post. In fact, I thought it was quite poignant. Recently I've been reading several books that seem to me to be grappling with a few of these thoughts you raise. They approach this question of religion, atheism, how we make meaning of our lives. First I read Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre and The Birth of Tragedy by Nietzsche. They're existentialist and discussed how as individuals we create our own meaning of life, theists by God and atheists by the art of a beautiful life. I felt like I understood the ideas even better after Cat's Cradle and The Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut. I would highly recommend these latter two to you, especially Slaughterhouse, I bet you would love them. Cats asks if there can be true meaning in things that aren't true. And Slaughterhouse seems to be about whether we can understand our lives at all without creating a story about it - with a beginning, a middle, and an end - so that we can make meaning of all these jumbled up moments in our lives. It's the art and stories we tell about our life that make our life meaningful.
In any event, I came away feeling, I think, about the same as you did. That there is so much to love, and respect, and learn from the way that atheists live beautiful lives. They take "know thyself" as a serious, profound charge, and seek to do good even without the promise of some external reward, but just because good is beautiful. And I felt like we faithful should try harder to plumb our own souls for the beauty that comes through righteous living and trust in a loving God and selfless care for our brothers and sisters and faith in an atoning Savior.
I fear I have gone a little indulgent in this peroration. But suffice it to say, I really enjoyed your post.
Diane
Post a Comment