Last Sunday we talked about worldview. You can simplify your worldview to your religion or your political affiliation. Worldview is like a jar of marbles. If you're a Marxist, then drop in some red marbles. And if you're also a Deist, then drop in some blue marbles. And if you also follow a material/money centered life then drop in some green ones. But basically your worldview is a medley of all these things. So it would be incorrect to say that Keller holds a Christian worldview and Dawkins an atheist one. Those are just one type of marble in their worldview jar. They may be the majority of the marbles or they may not be, but they're not the only ones.
Then someone in the group brought up how Dawkins' introduction is very condescending. Put plainly, it's not a nice introduction. It's not even that Dawkins isn't being warm and welcoming; he clearly thinks very little about religious people and that we don't think for ourselves at all. Keller's introduction on the other hand doesn't raise religion or condemn atheism. It's simply a presentation of the statistics and facts from both sides of the argument. (how the church is declining in europe but christian orthodoxy growing, how more people in america are claiming no religion, and so on). Now, Keller wrote his book in response to Dawkins' so that very obviously affects how he writes. He's writing directly to Dawkins' claims and attacks. Now the person who raised this difference noted that being loving is a central part of the Christian worldview, and that is reflected in Keller's writing.
But later when I was talking to Tim about that comment, he raised the point that Dawkins has to write in such a way because he's speaking from an underdog position. And that got me thinking. Is he really? As America is becoming more atheist and less religious, is Dawkins still an underdog? Well if you look at public figures (politicians esp), they all profess some religion. All presidents have identified themselves as Christians, Kennedy being the only Catholic. He also brought up that in the House and Senate there's only one person who publicly declares to be an atheist. I didn't look into this so I can't corroborate this fact. But anyways, even though America becomes less religious, we still want to see the leaders of our country as Christians. Why is that? Because then we know they'll be "good" people? They'll make better decisions? Because it's what our country was founded on? All interesting questions to consider, but I won't consider them here. I'll save it for my head. What I'm interested in, is even if Dawkins is an underdog, is it actually necessary to take on such a demeaning, condescending tone? Does he have to write in that manner in order to make his point? Honestly, I think he could make the exact same argument without his condescending remarks. I'm not going to be so rude as to say this is indicative of the atheist worldview but the guy who brought this up during the discussion wasn't saying that it was - he was saying that this theme of love so central to Christian doctrine is not central to atheism, which probably affects how these two authors approach the opposition. [And yes I know that an atheist can be more loving than a Christian. That there are a lot of Christian assholes out there. I know all this and am not concerned about going into it]. Given all this it might seem that my point is bland, and it kind of is but what an important bland point! The discussion in the group and with Tim just really drew out for me what it means to love others. And personally that's what I'm trying to focus on right now - loving other people through my thoughts and actions, in my relationships, and in my day-to-day interactions.
What else did we talk about? I don't remember. Oh but I had a marvelously long and profound conversation with Austin about God. I was trying to convince him to come to the group and we started talking about our faith and where we were right now in our individual paths. I will continue this in another entry.
4 years ago
4 comments:
On the atheist as underdog position, I think you are sweeping an issue under the rug faster than it deserves. Think of atheism as a set of beliefs -- a religion if you will (a religion believing in the lack of a supreme deity/being). Now, let's for the sake of argument, call atheism "Islam" and its adherents "Muslims."
Now, you're Muslim. In a nation where all of its leaders are Christian, some to the point of actively condemning entire swaths of people based on Christian faith (regardless of how accurately interpreted, e.g. homosexuals, atheists, Muslims, Democrats, etc). Your pledge of loyalty to the country is Christian. Your oath under court of law is Christian. The country, on the whole, takes the Christian Sabbath and makes time off for Christian holidays. Your views are ridiculed in some quarters as high-brow or foreign. There is a war going on which you suspect is motivated a lot by religion.
I'm not here to justify Dawkin's tone, but to maybe help you better understand it. There's a reason many people choose not to disclose their atheism. That reason is fear. You tell me, that scenario I just painted -- it may be slanted and incomplete, but to the extent that it's even partially accurate, you have a sense of why atheists feel "under attack."
oh yeah i totally hear you. i guess i didn't make that clear but i could see why atheism would be consider the underdog belief because of all our political leaders that are christians and the foundations of this nation. tim made that pretty clear to me, and so do you. my apologies for making it seem as if i was sweeping it under the rug, which i sort of did, but only because i didn't feel like going into it.
thanks for the insightful comment
"even though America becomes less religious, we still want to see the leaders of our country as Christians. Why is that? Because then we know they'll be "good" people?"
Granted, you refused to consider this questions- but I considered it for you.
You make it seem like there is a large group of atheists who are voting for Christians because atheists think Christians are "better" people...
Even though America "becomes less religious," only 15% of Americans responded as atheistic or agnostic on the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey.
America is still overrun by Christians (80%) and is thus is run by Christians. People tend to vote for people who "look like them." With majority rule, it would make sense if all politicians were Christian. I mean, we've had 43 white, Christian, male presidents. Is that because we think white Christian males make better decisions?
Luckily people don't vote solely on the basis of race, creed, gender, etc. (Hence, Obama.)
I would not be surprised if there begins a trend of areligious politicians, as you say- we are becoming more popular.
first of all i'm NOT saying that atheists vote for Christians because we're "better people." but i think that can be a popular misconception. i know that you know that's not true but mainstream america doesn't think as much as you do. and the question "I mean, we've had 43 white, Christian, male presidents. Is that because we think white Christian males make better decisions?" is a question that i don't know the answer to. perhaps. but not necessarily.
"Luckily people don't vote solely on the basis of race, creed, gender, etc. (Hence, Obama.)" yes quite luckily. but we can't ignore that many people do vote on those guidelines because that's how they connect with candidates which goes back to the point you made that people vote for people who look like them.
and i'd be very interested to see such a trend develop - one of areligious politicans that is. we shall see.
Post a Comment