It’s starting to look a little bit dangerous to be
identified as an atheist these days. The
circle of demonization has been extending itself since the infamous
Nine/Eleven. That event put Muslims on
the shit list. Homosexuals have been
thoroughly demonized by now. Liberals
need not apply in some quarters. People
are angry, and as the world gets weirder and the changes in society come along
faster, people are looking for someone or some group or groups to blame it on,
to blame whatever the voices in their heads are telling them is happening
on.
Not only Muslims now, but, depending on whom you ask, also Hindus,
Sikhs, animists (!!!) and atheists are coming up for the treatment. Somehow anyone in any of those groups, maybe
particularly the homosexuals, is individually and collectively responsible for
all of the evils of our society, as delineated by the haters, the
demonizers.
Make your own list of the demons, it’s fun. Hamas sympathizers! Washington insiders! Global Warming patsies! Dissidents! Contraceptive mongers! Democrats!
Leftists! Congressmen! Federal agents! FEMA! The
UN! The possibilities are endless.
This is all dangerous, especially if you find yourself in
one of the demon categories.
Eliminationist language is frequently employed, often by semi-famous
people on Facebook or the radio, and daily by anonymous paranoids in the
comment threads of the Internet. Often
they do now shy away from mentioning their preference for Final Solutions.
So I am moved to wonder:
do my views on religion make me eligible for death?
What Am I?
I have never made a secret of my views on religion. I don’t approve of it. I generally claim that I respect religion,
all religions, as other people’s business, it’s up to them. But that’s not entirely true, the respecting
part. Really I think it’s all poppycock.
Perhaps luckily for me and my fellow travelers, that may not
be enough to make one an atheist. Let’s
hold this thing up to the light.
“Atheism/atheist: a
disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.” (Not capitalized in the source.) From the Greek, “a theos,” without God. (All definitions from the Concise Oxford
English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2006.)
This might save me on a technicality, because disbelief,
like belief, is an affirmative act. You
can argue with atheists, they have taken a position. It seems to me that atheism is a faith, as
much as any religion is a faith. Atheism
is a belief, based not on evidence, that there is no God. It is based, if anything, on the lack of
evidence for the existence of God. In my
Weltanschauung, either the belief in God or the belief that God does not exist
are equally foolish.
There is another category, a kind of “atheism lite,” a kind
of wishy-washy almost atheism.
“Agnostic: a person
who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence or nature
of God." (Capitalized in the
source.) From the Greek, “a gnostic,”
without knowledge.
Well, that’s a lot more like it. “Agnostic” seems to sum up my feelings on the
matter quite nicely. As little as we now
understand even about ordinary reality, which can be observed and quantified,
it seems ridiculous to me to begin pretending that we understand the nature of
God. I am quite satisfied to continue to
capitalize the word, “God,” while I remain unpersuaded on the subject of God’s
existence of lack thereof. Who
knows? Stranger things have happened
than God.
Agnostic still has a belief component though, and I’m pretty
sure that I don’t believe in anything at all on the subject. Besides, claiming the status of an agnostic
when they come for the atheists would be a lot like hiding from the Big Bad
Wolf in a house made of straw. I’m
pretty sure that such a narrow distinction would not be honored by hunters.
Faithless
So I’m going with faithless to describe my own condition. I’ve written about my failure in this area
before. I’ve never in my life had any faith in
anything religious. It’s not something
that I lost at some point, it never took root in me in the first place. From the earliest attempts by teachers, or my
parents, or the church, to inculcate some kind of religious belief in me, I
have universally found those efforts to be dubious at best, frequently ridiculous,
and certainly nothing that remotely lined up with the world that was staring me
in the face.
Could I be demonized for faithlessness? It wouldn’t be easy, but those who might seek
to do so paint with big brushes, so I guess anything is possible. My defense would be that faithlessness is not
a moral or intellectual position, it is a straightforward confession of
fact. Some may disapprove of it, but you cannot
argue with it. Faithlessness is
blameless.
2 comments:
Faithless is a good term I guess. I’ve always thought it a true sign of the power of religion that we have to have a name for someone who doesn’t believe in a god of some type. There is no name for people who don’t believe in unicorns, so why should there be a name for someone who doesn’t believe in something just as baseless? I think the big difference between a religious person and a faithless person is that we aren’t bothered by uncertainty. I have no clue what happened before the big bang, or what the universe is expanding into, or what was “I” before I was born, or what will happen to “me” after I die. This life, my friends and family and their situations now are what I care about. I can do something about that, I can’t do much with the other stuff; so why bother.
I agree that it's all about the uncertainty. If religion is a comfort to some people, it is because religion offers a framework and an excuse for uncertainty. Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment