This month I’m challenging my readers to raise $12,500 for the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. We’re already well on our way. You can donate here. Click on the tweet above to read an endless thread debunking the idea that Christmas is a reappropriation of pagan or Roman holidays. What’s funny is that
I see this among Progressive Christians, too (I should know, I was one): the respect for other people's/religion's beliefs. If you are a Christian and consider Hinduism an equally valid belief system, then are you even really believing in Christianity? I don't mean to insult the many Christians I still know and love. I think they don't really believe the tenets that make it exclusionary, but they don't want to face the logical outcome of what that means, and they're not ready to give up the structure and comfort of long-held rituals.
I think the central tension is more or less as follows:
1. It's a human universal norm to need traditions such as holidays which bind people and cultures together.
2. If you're the sort of person who can recognize that objectively you also likely recognize the particular traditions/holidays that you grew up with are a farce which (fundamentally) are interchangeable with those practiced by anyone else. You're also quite probably a weird alienated outsider to your own traditions anyway, and might not even be neurotypical. You might not be an outright atheist, but you recognize that it's all playacting, more or less.
As someone who was raised Catholic and has no connection to religion at this point, it’s still true that the New Testament (as one example) has a lot of good stuff! For myself and many others, there is inspiration provided by those principles, and the world would be a much better place if they were actually followed. The TLDR for those principles for me is “care about people in need.”
It’s important to remember that the people in charge of religions are the ones screwing then up, not always the teachings themselves.
My sense is that the New New Atheists know this all too well and are insecure about it. They look around at our “crisis of meaning,” at the explosion of deaths of despair, and they feel guilty. They think their own worldview is partly to blame for the misery. They feel have little to offer, and that religion has plenty. So they wind up trying to suck the marrow from the bones of a carcass that they believe is rightly dead
It’s more so desperation than condescension - they want so badly to be good, but they’re scared the truth is at odds with goodness
In a world where institutions are collapsing right and left (pun retroactively intended), this atheist is at listening to the idea that at least religions provided SOMETHING.
But also note that my wife is quite religious and that I have never quite been able to summon the disdain for religion given my inability to dismiss others’ claims of personal experiences of God.
Excellent points all. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to exclude religion from your life. Ideally, each individual, whether subscribing to a religion or adopting a secular atheism, adopts a set of principles and values that accord with maintaining a functional and polite society. Observing the “golden rule,” for example.
As important is embracing the notion of tolerance. Not compulsory acceptance or celebration, some societal mandate to embrace perspectives with which you disagree. Tolerance. An ability to agree to disagree, and to move forward with mutual acknowledgement that agreement is sufficient.
Finally, those who disagree do so in good faith. Indulging in baseless ad hominem attacks, and collapsing whole groups of people into monoliths to extrapolate base characteristics to all, deprives them of individuality, agency, and individual sovereignty. That is as outrageous as it is disgraceful, and it would be better, in my opinion, to keep an open mind and engage in argumentation with humility.
And that is what is most palpably absent in many of rhetorical exchanges today: humility. The certitude, moral and otherwise, demonstrated by people on all sides of many arguments is confounding to me. The lack of self-awareness, introspection, and curiosity about most subjects is disheartening, to say the least, and all would be well served to remember most of us know far less than we do and undoubtedly live in glass houses.
Thoughtful article and thank you for sharing it, Mr. deBoer. You often provoke my own thoughts and I am better for it!
The main point of Tim O'Neill's project, according to him anyway, is to stop the cacophony of the crowd who keep shouting "FACTS and LOGIC!" from the rooftops from embarrassing themselves by getting the facts wrong, over and over again. In a sense, it really doesn't matter where Christmas comes from—proving every last Christmas tradition is 100% pagan in origin would still say nothing about whether one Jesus Christ was the Son of God—but having an avalanche of online atheists use these allegations as ammunition every year absolutely undermines the project of presenting atheism as a more fact-based alternative to religion.
"We come to atheism in sorrow. The lack of a god destroys the possibility of transcendent meaning."
I see people often mention this kind of thing, but I don't see a reason for it.
Not all who disbelieve in god grieve that loss. Not all who lack a god have lost the transcendent.
To me, the lack of god or even some kind of fixed meaning for life and the universe seems like something worth celebrating! We are not tainted by some ancient sin, nor are we hopelessly wandering through a symbolic desert where we must accept that the goal of life is to improve ourselves or our species, lest we suffer some punishment (whether eternal or recurrent).
Life is not suffering. Life simply is. Sometimes it's hard and bleak, but it's often quite beautiful. And when you look at the grandeur of nature, when you consider the majesty of the construction of the universe, you can still be overwhelmed by awe. And, to me, an awe all the more beautiful because no hand constructed it for us.
I think I sort of fall into the view you are criticizing here. I've been an atheist and/or agnostic since I was a kid, and my first foyer into arguing on the internet c. 2000 was strongly focused on arguing the atheist position. At the same time, I've generally appreciated the right kind of church, to the point of attending a UCC church for a few years c. 2005. I probably would do so now, if it wouldn't freak out my wife.
I tend to agree with Haidt that, even if religion has problems, many of which the Religious Right likes to highlight, it has benefits too, and we've sort of thrown the baby out with the bathwater with a plan to replace those benefits.
For me, it's less of a "god-shaped hole" and more of a "Sunday morning-shaped hole." Church service the purpose of providing semi-mandatory social mixing of members of the community (although obviously not all) who otherwise wouldn't interact with each other. When we got rid of it, we didn't really replace it with anything (the closest comparison I've seen is children's birthday parties, where you are forced to socialize with the parents of whomever else happens to be in your kids class). I tend to think that the loss of this sort of socializing has contributed to both the loneliness epidemic/bowling alone, as many people now lack a way to meet people with whom to make friends. I also think that it has contributed to polarization, as without this sort of social mixing, you are less likely to wind up being friends with people who different life experiences than you. Lamenting this loss of community building isn't "praying to the god shaped hole."
I also think that there is some merit to the "god-shaped hole" argument, although in a slightly different way that you describe. I don't think everyone has a "god-shaped hole," I am pretty sure I don't. However, it does appear that there are a lot of people who do. This takes the form of both needing some sort of meaning for life, the universe and everything and wanting some sort of righteous cause to follow. As people have given up traditional religions, I think you've seen them take up replacements. Some of this is taking up non-traditional spirituality, e.g. wicca. Some of it is buying into grand conspiracies, e.g. QAnon, and some of it is going hard into new moral systems, e.g. "Woke" politics. This, however, is more of an observation than a lament. I don't think that we need to worry about filling the god-shaped hole, because I think people who need to, will find a way to do it. At most, you have to be concerned about what they are filling it with, and, while I'd prefer people get into a main-line Christianity than QAnon, I don't know that, on average, people are filling their god-shaped hole with something worse than they once were.
While I generally agree with the thrust of this article (or at least, I agree with it insofar as I can, while being a believing Christian) that it's probably better for an atheist to be clear-headed and forthright in their considered rejection of religion rather than to get mixed up in a vague post-modern "you do you" muddle, I think that there is room among the various strains of atheistic thought for differences in the degree of favorability toward religion.
I don't think that the core of atheism -- believing that there is in fact no god -- necessarily has to entail a highly critical posture toward religion. Though it certainly often does, and it's probably the most intuitive sociological position toward which to proceed from atheism, I don't think it's actually an inherent consequence of an atheistic starting principle.
As there are a wide variety of both religions-in-general and specific practices within religions, I think it makes sense for an atheist to be more critical of some religions and less critical of others.
One might, for example, be more negatively disposed toward the Christianity that motivated American slave owners but more positively disposed toward the Christianity that motivated abolitionists, while still retaining the viewpoint that both were wrong to derive their principles from the illusion of Christianity.
In a more contemporary example, one might be more friendly toward the Christians that staff refugee service charities than one is toward those that staff the Heritage Foundation, while again still criticizing the motivating beliefs of both.
As religion is not an undifferentiated monolith, neither does an atheistic perspective on religion need to be a singular response.
Lolol I thought this was going to be, "Who cares where the holidays come from, they're fun! Eggnog! Presents!" instead FdB is like, "GOD IS DEAD." Cheers!
The point of this post is not to disparage the religious, much less the holidays. The point is that we have to take religion seriously on its own terms, to respect its truth claims by evaluating them.
This thoughtful essay puts me in mind of those folks who insist that the Bible doesn't *actually* ban same-sex unions, or who can "prove" that there is no biblical basis for opposing abortion choice, blah blah. My response is always, "We shouldn't base the rules of a free and open society on a religious book, so I don't care what the Bible says."
So while I appreciate Dan Savage debating Brian Brown on what's Christian (or what isn't) about same-sex marriage, I think it's a futile exercise.
Ursula K. LeGuin pointed out that even if you are walking away from Rome, you're still on the Roman road.
I see this among Progressive Christians, too (I should know, I was one): the respect for other people's/religion's beliefs. If you are a Christian and consider Hinduism an equally valid belief system, then are you even really believing in Christianity? I don't mean to insult the many Christians I still know and love. I think they don't really believe the tenets that make it exclusionary, but they don't want to face the logical outcome of what that means, and they're not ready to give up the structure and comfort of long-held rituals.
I think the central tension is more or less as follows:
1. It's a human universal norm to need traditions such as holidays which bind people and cultures together.
2. If you're the sort of person who can recognize that objectively you also likely recognize the particular traditions/holidays that you grew up with are a farce which (fundamentally) are interchangeable with those practiced by anyone else. You're also quite probably a weird alienated outsider to your own traditions anyway, and might not even be neurotypical. You might not be an outright atheist, but you recognize that it's all playacting, more or less.
As someone who was raised Catholic and has no connection to religion at this point, it’s still true that the New Testament (as one example) has a lot of good stuff! For myself and many others, there is inspiration provided by those principles, and the world would be a much better place if they were actually followed. The TLDR for those principles for me is “care about people in need.”
It’s important to remember that the people in charge of religions are the ones screwing then up, not always the teachings themselves.
“We come to atheism in sorrow”
My sense is that the New New Atheists know this all too well and are insecure about it. They look around at our “crisis of meaning,” at the explosion of deaths of despair, and they feel guilty. They think their own worldview is partly to blame for the misery. They feel have little to offer, and that religion has plenty. So they wind up trying to suck the marrow from the bones of a carcass that they believe is rightly dead
It’s more so desperation than condescension - they want so badly to be good, but they’re scared the truth is at odds with goodness
In a world where institutions are collapsing right and left (pun retroactively intended), this atheist is at listening to the idea that at least religions provided SOMETHING.
But also note that my wife is quite religious and that I have never quite been able to summon the disdain for religion given my inability to dismiss others’ claims of personal experiences of God.
Excellent points all. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to exclude religion from your life. Ideally, each individual, whether subscribing to a religion or adopting a secular atheism, adopts a set of principles and values that accord with maintaining a functional and polite society. Observing the “golden rule,” for example.
As important is embracing the notion of tolerance. Not compulsory acceptance or celebration, some societal mandate to embrace perspectives with which you disagree. Tolerance. An ability to agree to disagree, and to move forward with mutual acknowledgement that agreement is sufficient.
Finally, those who disagree do so in good faith. Indulging in baseless ad hominem attacks, and collapsing whole groups of people into monoliths to extrapolate base characteristics to all, deprives them of individuality, agency, and individual sovereignty. That is as outrageous as it is disgraceful, and it would be better, in my opinion, to keep an open mind and engage in argumentation with humility.
And that is what is most palpably absent in many of rhetorical exchanges today: humility. The certitude, moral and otherwise, demonstrated by people on all sides of many arguments is confounding to me. The lack of self-awareness, introspection, and curiosity about most subjects is disheartening, to say the least, and all would be well served to remember most of us know far less than we do and undoubtedly live in glass houses.
Thoughtful article and thank you for sharing it, Mr. deBoer. You often provoke my own thoughts and I am better for it!
The main point of Tim O'Neill's project, according to him anyway, is to stop the cacophony of the crowd who keep shouting "FACTS and LOGIC!" from the rooftops from embarrassing themselves by getting the facts wrong, over and over again. In a sense, it really doesn't matter where Christmas comes from—proving every last Christmas tradition is 100% pagan in origin would still say nothing about whether one Jesus Christ was the Son of God—but having an avalanche of online atheists use these allegations as ammunition every year absolutely undermines the project of presenting atheism as a more fact-based alternative to religion.
"We come to atheism in sorrow. The lack of a god destroys the possibility of transcendent meaning."
I see people often mention this kind of thing, but I don't see a reason for it.
Not all who disbelieve in god grieve that loss. Not all who lack a god have lost the transcendent.
To me, the lack of god or even some kind of fixed meaning for life and the universe seems like something worth celebrating! We are not tainted by some ancient sin, nor are we hopelessly wandering through a symbolic desert where we must accept that the goal of life is to improve ourselves or our species, lest we suffer some punishment (whether eternal or recurrent).
Life is not suffering. Life simply is. Sometimes it's hard and bleak, but it's often quite beautiful. And when you look at the grandeur of nature, when you consider the majesty of the construction of the universe, you can still be overwhelmed by awe. And, to me, an awe all the more beautiful because no hand constructed it for us.
I think I sort of fall into the view you are criticizing here. I've been an atheist and/or agnostic since I was a kid, and my first foyer into arguing on the internet c. 2000 was strongly focused on arguing the atheist position. At the same time, I've generally appreciated the right kind of church, to the point of attending a UCC church for a few years c. 2005. I probably would do so now, if it wouldn't freak out my wife.
I tend to agree with Haidt that, even if religion has problems, many of which the Religious Right likes to highlight, it has benefits too, and we've sort of thrown the baby out with the bathwater with a plan to replace those benefits.
For me, it's less of a "god-shaped hole" and more of a "Sunday morning-shaped hole." Church service the purpose of providing semi-mandatory social mixing of members of the community (although obviously not all) who otherwise wouldn't interact with each other. When we got rid of it, we didn't really replace it with anything (the closest comparison I've seen is children's birthday parties, where you are forced to socialize with the parents of whomever else happens to be in your kids class). I tend to think that the loss of this sort of socializing has contributed to both the loneliness epidemic/bowling alone, as many people now lack a way to meet people with whom to make friends. I also think that it has contributed to polarization, as without this sort of social mixing, you are less likely to wind up being friends with people who different life experiences than you. Lamenting this loss of community building isn't "praying to the god shaped hole."
I also think that there is some merit to the "god-shaped hole" argument, although in a slightly different way that you describe. I don't think everyone has a "god-shaped hole," I am pretty sure I don't. However, it does appear that there are a lot of people who do. This takes the form of both needing some sort of meaning for life, the universe and everything and wanting some sort of righteous cause to follow. As people have given up traditional religions, I think you've seen them take up replacements. Some of this is taking up non-traditional spirituality, e.g. wicca. Some of it is buying into grand conspiracies, e.g. QAnon, and some of it is going hard into new moral systems, e.g. "Woke" politics. This, however, is more of an observation than a lament. I don't think that we need to worry about filling the god-shaped hole, because I think people who need to, will find a way to do it. At most, you have to be concerned about what they are filling it with, and, while I'd prefer people get into a main-line Christianity than QAnon, I don't know that, on average, people are filling their god-shaped hole with something worse than they once were.
While I generally agree with the thrust of this article (or at least, I agree with it insofar as I can, while being a believing Christian) that it's probably better for an atheist to be clear-headed and forthright in their considered rejection of religion rather than to get mixed up in a vague post-modern "you do you" muddle, I think that there is room among the various strains of atheistic thought for differences in the degree of favorability toward religion.
I don't think that the core of atheism -- believing that there is in fact no god -- necessarily has to entail a highly critical posture toward religion. Though it certainly often does, and it's probably the most intuitive sociological position toward which to proceed from atheism, I don't think it's actually an inherent consequence of an atheistic starting principle.
As there are a wide variety of both religions-in-general and specific practices within religions, I think it makes sense for an atheist to be more critical of some religions and less critical of others.
One might, for example, be more negatively disposed toward the Christianity that motivated American slave owners but more positively disposed toward the Christianity that motivated abolitionists, while still retaining the viewpoint that both were wrong to derive their principles from the illusion of Christianity.
In a more contemporary example, one might be more friendly toward the Christians that staff refugee service charities than one is toward those that staff the Heritage Foundation, while again still criticizing the motivating beliefs of both.
As religion is not an undifferentiated monolith, neither does an atheistic perspective on religion need to be a singular response.
Lolol I thought this was going to be, "Who cares where the holidays come from, they're fun! Eggnog! Presents!" instead FdB is like, "GOD IS DEAD." Cheers!
The point of this post is not to disparage the religious, much less the holidays. The point is that we have to take religion seriously on its own terms, to respect its truth claims by evaluating them.
This thoughtful essay puts me in mind of those folks who insist that the Bible doesn't *actually* ban same-sex unions, or who can "prove" that there is no biblical basis for opposing abortion choice, blah blah. My response is always, "We shouldn't base the rules of a free and open society on a religious book, so I don't care what the Bible says."
So while I appreciate Dan Savage debating Brian Brown on what's Christian (or what isn't) about same-sex marriage, I think it's a futile exercise.