“All opinions are that of the author and not necessarily those of the website that it is published under.”
Belief in God, or some Being beyond ourselves, and belief in a phase of human existence beyond this earthly one, has been common throughout human history and continues to the present day. Whether this is due to nature or nurture is a matter of debate.
Islam comes down clearly on the side of nature as the starting point, with awareness of God and of an afterlife seen as part of the complete package – physical, intellectual and spiritual – that constitutes the human being, and one of the important characteristics which raises him above the level of the other beings with which he shares the universe. While the fundamental elements which go towards his physical make-up are similar to those of all other creatures, human consciousness – the intellect and intuitive perception – are unique to the human being. It is these that empower him, during his life, to either nurture or reject that original, inborn awareness. Failure to engage with this higher level of cognition is a waste of those faculties and arguably also a failure to achieve “humanity” in its fullest sense.
Most people, whether they are people of faith or atheists, or any of the shades between the two poles, agree that each individual has the freedom to choose her or his own path.
This being so, why is it that hard-core atheists feel so called upon to attack believers vociferously and without end? This is, of course, most evident from those who give public speeches or write on the Internet, but it happens also at the level of private conversation between friends and acquaintances.
What is it that upsets them so much? Why do they feel so threatened?
The arguments that most of them put forward are emotional, given to sweeping generalizations and blatant misinformation, and fall far short of offering a sound basis for serious discussion. In other words it is much like racism. In this sense their positive contribution to the welfare of humanity is hard to see. In any case, religious beliefs, or rejection thereof, is supposed to be matter of individual choice and responsibility, so why do they feel they have to make so much effort to save the whole of humanity? Furthermore, it is didactically unsound to insult and curse the people whom you want to persuade and reform.
It is worth noting, too, that the mass media has supported this trend of thought: there is a lamentable tendency to adopt wholesale the current, fleeting fad, which at present leans heavily towards rejecting and belittling religions and people of faith. There is no variety of opinion (those who try to introduce it are ridiculed and soundly berated), no deeper discussion: religion, which has enriched human lives and civilization for thousands of years, is simply swept away without any serious and objective debate.
The prophets of all religions were much more respectful. It is true that they tirelessly conveyed the messages entrusted to them by God (as they, and their followers, firmly believed and continue to believe). They spent their lives explaining the teachings they brought in a comprehensive manner – not just expecting people to follow them unthinkingly, but arguing their case in order to persuade the thinking mind, the sensitive heart. They accepted that their duty was simply to convey the message in word and in personal practice; whether or not people believed them was between them (the people) and God.
Is it not reasonable, then, for people of faith to resent the aggressive and persistent intrusion of atheists into their personal space for exercising their free will?
We return to the question as to why atheists feel so compelled to force everyone to accept their own personal choices.
Why should anyone resent the presence in the world, indeed in their own community, of God-fearing people? The latter will be trustworthy and honest, will be caring and compassionate towards others, will honour an agreement, help you when you are in need; they will not steal your money, wreck the environment to enrich themselves, sabotage your business, seduce your wife, be paedophiles, be thoughtless and selfish neighbours… whatever your own personal beliefs, what is there not to like in such neighbours? Yes, they will pray and fast and attend their places of worship at regular intervals, but what harm does this do to anyone else?
Is there, perhaps, a niggling uncertainty deep in their psyches? An unsettlingly persistent voice deep within them that reminds them of that innate awareness of God with which they were born but which they have tried so hard to smother? Of course, the presence of believing people in their midst would be one of the triggers to reactivate that tiresome voice. Maybe, then, their vehement attacks on believers is not so much to do with saving others, but is a desperate attempt to still those troubling doubts within themselves.
The mass media, in supporting this opinion (which is, after all, just an opinion) also aid in lulling people into the apparent comfort of not having to tackle “difficult” questions of life. Is this really a positive contribution to, or a reduction of, human consciousness and civilization?
“All opinions are that of the author and not necessarily those of the website that it is published under.”
I was intrigued to see the title of your essay and immediately started reading. I was almost immediately taken with a feeling of irony. As a person who who is not driven by religion or dogma, I frequently feel exactly as you do – but from my own point of view. It seems that everywhere I turn I am accosted by theist views, opinions, and proselytizing. Whether I watch FOX News or MSNBC (American news channels of opposing political parties), morality issues linked to religious beliefs find their way into political and social arguments. While I admit to a rather isolated existence in terms of interactions with others of differing view points, I still find that many of those interactions somehow become religion-centric – whether through statements, assumptions of my holding similar beliefs, or invitations to elevate myself by embracing (usually) Christ. If, during these discussions I make reference to my lack of belief; I am met with incredulity. It is almost as if I am an alien from a distant galaxy with ties to the devil – incomprehensible and somehow unclean; perhaps a little dangerous. So, while I’m not wondering what the theists are afraid of, I do frequently wonder why it is so important that I subscribe to a certain belief system. On a more personal level than surface interactions of a kind we all make everyday, I often feel silenced when speaking with people I am much closer to – relatives for instance or casual friends – because I do not like contention, and hate to be rude. Religion is such a volatile subject I rarely want to risk suggesting I disagree. This silence that I have imposed upon myself serves to separate me even further from others because I am unable to engage as my natural self. I hope by presenting this point of view I give you hope that atheists are not all of the bent that you describe in your essay and that you can be encouraged by one non believer who is not trying to change your mind.
Further on you say that intellect and intuitive perception encourage a person to nurture or reject an innate awareness of God and that to reject this means to fail to achieve humanity in its fullest sense. Since I’m not certain what the parameters of having achieved humanity to its fullest sense looks like I won’t argue that portion, but I do disagree that there is an intuitive perception to be rejected. Perhaps the intuition of a higher power or creator is obvious to you, it has never been to me. In fact, I spent many years, sometimes desperately, trying to believe in a God (I capitalize God to respect your beliefs. To use god would be an insult). I studied the three major religions and some of the Eastern philosophies and time and again attempted to go back to my Catholic roots and lose myself in the warmth of faith. It was not to be. Further, I have in the past and still do wish that I had faith. I think that life is so much easier when one can believe it will definitely all be ok in the end and that there is at least one Being interested in my trials and accomplishments. I was raised in religion and from my earliest intellectual pursuits regarding the matter have had difficulty making myself believe in what I was being taught. At this point in my life, having lived 50 years, I don’t know if a God exists, I do not see proof for His existence and the more I learn the less I believe in that possibility. I do however believe that religion has engendered its people to do much good – in history and the present, even as it has and does incite people to violence, repression, and a narrow view of life.
What am I afraid of? You’re right to say that religious people can make good neighbors (although I know from personal experience that being religious does not stop someone from doing harm). What I fear is another’s morality infringing on my own and others’ freedoms. The United States proclaims that all it’s citizens are free to practice their religion. Most don’t think of this but that means that I am free to not believe in religion or a God and have the right not to be bound by tenets of the majority theology. There is a basic distinction of right and wrong in law: malum in se and malum prohibitum. Malum in se are those things that are innately wrong. Malum prohibitum, those things that we say are wrong. Any person with any level of humanity in them can agree on what is malum in se. The problem come with malum prohibitum and the laws I may be forced to live under because an interpretation of the Christian bible says it should be so. Reproductive rights and gay marriage come to mind immediately. Stem cell therapy is another…the list continues. I am fearful of living in a society that is not secular and am already bored beyond reason with mainstream American culture – how much worse will it get as the religious right uses more of its money and influence to further subdue cultural, artistic and intellectual creativity. I feel as if I am being corralled into a very small box where my interests are difficult to explore and there is a real danger of my waking up in 2 or 3 years unable to act according my own beliefs but forced to act in concert with the dogma of a particular religion.
Believe what you will, I will not only allow it, I’ll respect it. I just ask the same for myself. Thank you for the opportunity to share my point of view.
Janette, I thank you most sincerely and humbly for your frank and thoughtful response, which has enriched the discussion.
I note with appreciation that you “do not like contention and hate to be rude”, and agree absolutely that any meaningful debate and sharing between people with differing opinions must be polite and mutually respectful. So much of the strife in the world has been, and continues to be, caused by one group of people (whether religious, political or socio-economic) insisting on forcing others to accept their way – although, at the end of the day, one usually realizes that the prime motive of almost all such groups is selfish desire for power and the economic gains that come with it. You are right, of course, that “religion is such a volatile subject”; it is undoubtedly a very personal and therefore very sensitive matter, so all the more reason to enter into discussions on it with respect. One may oneself feel that one has found the “true way”, but there is always plenty one can learn and gain from listening to the ideas and concepts of others. This requires an open mind and a good dose of humility.
Your point about malum in se and malum prohibitum is a very pertinent one. Malum in se is surely a part of the intuitive awareness I spoke of, and Islam does have a solution to the malum prohibitum problem: laws in Islam must all be founded on fundamental (and therefore very broad) principles set down in the Qur’an – justice, mercy, fairness, accountability, protection of human dignity, a balance between rights and responsibilities, and others. The specific laws and the ways they are to be implemented must be formulated by human beings. The people who undertake this must have thorough and detailed understanding of the Qur’an and be righteous people; but it is inevitable that, as human beings, they will be fallible. They must ensure that these laws will fulfil the Islamic principles in the prevailing conditions of the society in which they will be implemented. It is thus expected that the actual laws will vary from place to place, and from period to period, due to different or changed conditions and needs. Failure to re-assess and renew can result in injustice: the opposite of the Islamic principle of justice. Unfortunately if one looks at many self-proclaimed Islamic states around the world, one will find numerous flaws in their respective justice systems, but this is due to human failure, not a failure of Islam itself.
I think one has to accept that any community of human beings, from a village to a large state, will have to formulate laws to ensure smooth administration and equitable justice throughout the community. The members/citizens will benefit from this order and facilities provided, but will have, in return, to make some small individual sacrifices and concur with majority views to which they don’t personally subscribe. All one can hope for is that the laws will be judiciously balanced and based on wisdom, and will be fairly implemented.
That you are still searching, hoping, means that, like so many of us, you have discovered that life is a journey. One does not find closure in this life, but one can find joy and hope in the step-by-step self-discovery throughout it. Kim (below) has given an important pointer: observe nature. This has been the starting point of human thought and contemplation since the beginning of human time, and was an exercise practised also by the prophets. Islam sees the universe as a complementary form of revelation, because it reflects so many aspects of its Creator. Because of this, in Islam, science and faith have not only never been in opposition to one another, but essentially interwoven. Scientific discovery and application of natural laws to works of applied science have always flourished side by side with poetry extolling the spiritual beauty and metaphysical truths which can be seen in our surroundings.
Hello Animah,
As a ‘hard-core atheist’ may I please give you my perspective on the issues you have raised?
Imagine thinking about gods that you do not believe in, for example Zeus, Thor or the Sun God.That is what it feels like to be an atheist. Now imagine that billions of people believed in these gods and furthermore wanted to fashion society and morality according to ancient books supposedly inspired by each of these gods. As Steven Weinberg has said:
‘With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion.’
These aforementioned gods rule that:
– Contraception is forbidden, causing untold misery through poverty and HIV.
– Stoning and other corporeal punishments are to be meted out.
– Babies should be circumcised, a violation which can cause pain, infection and even death.
– Women may be chastised.
– LGBT persons are sinful, in some places even killed.
– Animals are to be ritually slaughtered, being unnecessarily distressing and painful.
– Faith overrides the evidence of science, subverting education.
-You may not leave the religion, on pain of death or banishment.
Would you not say, hang on, this is all very medieval. Can we not have a discussion about the origins of faith and whether we have moved on to a more rational and humanitarian view of the way we treat each other.
You ask ‘what are atheists afraid of?’ Faith, belief without evidence, can be a frightening thing because it brooks no argument or discussion. We see this in action today with the terrible sectarian violence around the world and the horrific actions of religious fundamentalists.
So why do we not just shut up?
Lawrence Krauss has this to say:
‘Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend. If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.’
Atheists are often idealists who want to see a better world with less suffering. Prayer, and attending to your own life, are not seen as helping. But you do not see atheists committing acts of violence or terrorism in the name of atheism.
Atheists are no less likely to be good citizens or neighbours than religious people. You do not have to have a god to be good!
Finally, if you told someone that you didn’t like coffee and they replied ‘Oh yes you do. You have an innate love of coffee which you were born with but which you are trying hard to smother. The presence of coffee drinkers in your midst is a trigger to reactivate that tiresome voice’, you might find that frustrating…or an indication of a wide gap in communication. A gap which I would really like to see narrowed.
Cordialement
Margaret
Margaret, I thank you, too, for your response. However, it is difficult to hold a discussion with someone who has decided very firmly that I (and the other millions of “believers” who still persist in their “ignorance”) need to be liberated. The arrogance is staggering. And, more importantly, your own knowledge is questionable. As explained above, faith and (empirical) science are not implacable enemies, but are instead mutually enriching. Secondly, empirical science didn’t suddenly start 500 years ago: in many earlier civilizations around the world both religion and science flourished together without much conflict – Ancient Greece and Rome, India, China, and the Islamic world. It is true that certain factions in the Church during medieval and early Renaissance times rejected important findings by scientists, which, to them, seemed to contradict the Bible, but this was rather a case of human failure – an overly literal interpretation of certain passages; and, undeniably, an all too worldly desire by some Church leaders to maintain their power and accompanying sources of wealth. The Christian faith itself, along with other major world religions, carries a wealth of knowledge and wisdom which is eternally valid for humanity. Empirical science, by its very nature, is a work in progress, probing ever wider and deeper to understand every aspect of our world including all the forms of life it constitutes. It has helped to make our lives far more comfortable and convenient, offering ever-widening opportunities for human enterprise.
But it cannot be denied that, when scientific discoveries are used in ways that are selfish or harm people, and thus become unsustainable, then science is no longer a benign factor in our lives. Of course it is true that atheists or any who decline to refer to religions, can work out codes of ethics (as it is also true that many atheists are responsible, kind and good people), but it is intellectually unsound to reject out of hand the ideas and concepts carried by religions, simply on the basis of prejudice. Your list of “god’s rules” above shows that you actually have very little knowledge, and therefore even less understanding, of the religions you so easily condemn. My conclusion is that science has not liberated your mind, but rather constricted it. Science is supposed to be strictly objective, isn’t it?
margaret jones; good religious people do not do evil. Atheists believe evil acts come from religion but evil acts come from evil people.They are NOT religious if they do evil. Name one religion that condones evil actions. Oh wait Satan worshipers condone evil. The Quran is full of science that could only come from the creator and these are easily found if you search the net. There is not a single atheist that can explain where the material that formed our universe came from.Where did the ‘big-bang’ material come from margaret? Atheists answer is that it was always here. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed but only converted; therefore the matter that fills the Universe came from God, as there is no other possibility. Well that is the definition of God. God always was and always will be. Look at your body Margaret and your brain and the millions of insects and animals that have covered the Earth for eons.
Do you think they ALL crawled out of the primordial soup? and they just simply chose to evolve into millions of different species. Where are the fossiles of T-Rex that show T-Rex a miilion years older and an evolution of T-rex? There is not a single atheist or scientist that can explain the appearence of millions of species from the ‘theory’ of evolution. If you cannot see God in a butterfly or a kitten you are not looking hard enough.
To Animah
If religion were just a personal matter, as you say, there would be no issue. Religion, like politics, impacts greatly on us all. Political ideas can and should be debated and challenged, likewise religious ideas. One of your other respondees, Janette, touched on topics which are an issue: reproductive rights, gay marriage, stem cell research. My list is a reality, not lack of knowledge. Everything on that list is being acted out in the name of one religion or another.
I certainly do not ‘reject out of hand ideas and concepts carried by religion’. ‘Do as you would be done by’, and ‘Do not repay evil with evil’, for example, are fine precepts to live by. But ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live’ for example, (the Bible), should surely be rejected.
You say that ‘The Christian faith, along with other major world religions, carries a wealth of knowledge and wisdom which is eternally valid for humanity.’
They also carry in their holy books deeds of immense cruelty and values which are not eternally valid, for example, slavery.
Religions do not have a monopoly on wisdom, and certainly not on knowledge. Philosophers and writers throughout the ages,and predating the Abrahamic religions, have all contributed to the well of human values.
Science has, as the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss has said, ‘liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance’, but some people still think that tsunamis and diseases are caused by the wrath of God.
Science and the supernatural are not compatible, as science requires evidence, eg. Evolution v. Creationism.
Atheists are often the most vociferous in taking a stand against injustice and harm (caused by the misuse of science or anything else). I can back this up if necessary.
I do not think that ‘arrogance’ or ‘humility’ are words that have anything to do with the exchange of facts and ideas between thoughtful people. Nothing I say is personal.