RSS
Home
A place for atheists, and atheists in their place: A response to 'simple arguments'
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Islamic Examiner Yusuf Khan has begun a series of "arguments against atheism," so naturally it seems like a good idea to respond to some of his points. Nothing like a good, friendly intra-Examiner debate, eh?
So to start: No, for the last time, atheism is not a religion.
Also, in case you were curious, someone who refuses to play pro sports is not a variety of professional athlete, someone who does not play a musical instrument or sing is not a just another kind of musician, and a vegetarian is not a type of carnivore.
Now, perhaps if one had a magazine, and one wanted to hire on the music-eschewing person to write about why they refuse to learn to play, you might place them in the music section of the magazine, for lack of a better idea. That doesn't change the fact that he or she is not a musician.
But Khan says that because atheists' books find themselves in the religion section of bookstores, and because Trina Hoaks (National Atheism Examiner), I, and other atheists are in the religion section of Examiner.com, atheism is therefor a religion.
Trina does a smashing job of taking this surprisingly common argument apart. A taste:
I understand that it is only recently that the atheist voice has been given a platform. There are not many sites that allow atheist writers to have their say. Because this is a relatively new phenomenon, it only makes sense that we should be placed in the most convenient or logical category. [ . . . ]
If a child chooses to keep her rock collection in an egg carton because it is handy that doesn't mean her rocks become eggs.
I would also note that the DC Ethical Issues Examiner also is also filed with religion at Examiner.com, but I don't see anyone claiming that an analysis of ethics in politics and government is a religion because of it. Okay, I think we've got that one put away.
Khan also writes in his first post:
No one seems confused on the definition of their disbelief than our Atheist friends themselves.
On the surface the definition of Atheism seems to be the denial of the existence of an all-Powerful, Supreme Creator.
However delving a little deeper into the quotes made by many Atheists confirms that a number of them do not deny the existence of God. Instead they seem to confirm His existence but defy His Authority.
You will note, first of all, that Khan offers no examples of such quotes, either in the post or via link. I will just have to assume that in future follow-ups he will have some to show us what he means.
I will only speak for myself, then, and say quite clearly that I deny the existence of God, gods, deities, demigods, a universal spirit, cosmic consciousness, messiah, prophets, etc., etc., etc.
You know what? I take that back. I don't just speak for myself on that point. Why do I so brazenly and arrogantly assume to know the feelings of my fellow atheists?
Because that's what an atheist is.
Were a god to exist, I cannot speak to what authority he/she/it may or may not have. I assume it would not be electorally bestowed, but again, that's just a guess. I have not yet received my cosmic voter registration card in the mail.
In his second post, Khan begins with a point of agreement, saying that atheists maybe ought to be in philosophy sections. No argument there. Indeed, my column might fit better in a sociology section. But there are no philosophy or sociology sections at Examiner, and we are where we are (and happily so). But then Khan says we're "unwelcome guests" in the religion sections of book stores and the like. I suppose he could write a letter to Barnes and Noble and get it all straightened out, there would be no complaint from me. Anyway, it still doesn't make atheism a religion, nor does it mean atheists think that they belong to one, which is his original point.
But then things take an odd turn. Khan "debunks" a "myth" about atheists that I have never even heard. And, you know, I know a little about this subject.
Myth: Atheism should be considered a mainstream way of life. This is because Buddhism is a form of Atheism.
What? If any atheists are making this argument to Khan, they should stop. Granted, I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I know that not all versions of it require theism, but that's beside the point. Atheists should be free to exist and participate mainstream society, because that's what free societies are all about. Assuming you believe in pluralism and the rights of all people regardless of their religions or lack thereof, atheists don't need an excuse to be part of the culture, and atheism doesn't need one to be part of the cultural debate. Not everyone is happy about this, unfortunately, and that's pretty much why I write for this column to begin with.
Now, to be totally fair to Khan, in his third post he writes, to his credit:
. . . before we begin I would like to take this opportunity to make it crystal-clear that I don't have an express agenda against individuals. It's the ideology I take exception to - just as Atheists take exception to monotheism. Fair enough?
Totally fair.
Khan then points out that atheists, when criticizing religion, take issue with some of what I will call Yahweh's personality quirks; the inconsistencies and cruelties we perceive from common understandings of the Abrahamic God. No argument there, either, and I will also say that I find it a little tiresome when some atheists -- among themselves -- waste a lot of time and thought debunking the particulars of a given holy book or existential claim, for it seems to me that once you've rejected the concept of the Prime Mover, so to speak, the rest of the details don't really matter that much anymore. You can't get to Jesus-as-son-of-God without the God part. So yes, we find a lot of what religion is to be dangerous and inhumane, and we say so. And rightly so.
Then Khan writes, "Curiously enough, ancient mythologies and pagan creeds are never attacked by Atheists." Indeed not -- or, at least rarely so. Ancient and mainly-unpracticed mythology and modern religious claims are equally implausible, of course, but the former hold no sway over our modern lives, public policy, world civilization, etc. There's no need to beat, as they say, a dead horse. There is no one in the Oval Office claiming that Zeus put them there to make the world safe for Olympians (of course, I can't disprove the existence of a pagan fundamentalist in the White House, so we may have a Russell's Teapot situation), nor are suicide bombers taking the lives of innocents in the name of any Native American river spirits.
Finally, Khan claims that all atheist complaints about religion are based on the Spanish Inquisition. I won't take up any more pixel space arguing that point in detail, but I think you will agree that he is not correct on that one either, as atheist writers and thinkers and critics of religious zealotry have a horrific smorgasbord of examples of religion's negative influence over human existence.
So there we have it, for now at least. I know I did not cover all of this arguments across his three posts, but I hope I got us started at least. I look forward to more salvos from all sides of the debate! Skepticism Examiner Dylan Otto Krider has already begun his own discussion of God and morality, and I hope to take part in that, too. Until then!
Related Articles:
Comments
