Transitional Atheism
Last night, excited about my new blog, I went to the religion section on my bookshelves and pulled out an old favorite. I started thumbing through A History of God by Karen Armstrong. If you’re interested in the development and evolution of the religions of the book (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), I highly recommend it. The author is a former nun, but writes a rigorous and objective history.
In the introduction, there is a passage that I thought would make for some interesting discussion.
The statement “I do not believe in God” has meant something slightly different at each period of history. The people who have been dubbed “atheists” over the years have always denied a particular conception of the divine. Is the “God” who is rejected by atheists today, the God of the patriarchs, the God of the prophets, the God of the philosophers, the God of the mystics or the God of the eighteenth-century deists? All these deities have been venerated as the God of the Bible and the Koran by Jews, Christians and Muslims at various points of their history… Atheism has often been a transitional state: thus Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called “atheists” by their pagan contemporaries because they had adopted a revolutionary notion of divinity and transcendence. Is modern atheism a similar denial of a “God” which is no longer adequate to the problems of our time?”
While I suppose no one will know for sure without the 20/20 hindsight of future generations, I think modern, western atheism (only 100 or 200 years old) is something brand new. I think it’s the first widespread movement to completely negate the concept of the divine without hedging its bets. Still, the passage certainly makes one stop and think. How do you all feel about this?
~I AM~
May 23rd, 2005 at at 10:23 am
I really don’t think that the atheistic outlook is very similar to jews, christians, or muslims at any point of history. They may have called each other atheists, but that kind of name-calling was most likely done by the church leaders to vilify the other religions in an attempt to incite violence or increase his control over his congregation. Atheism encompasses not only the belief that there is absolutely no god (not just a different type of god) but also usually that religions are ALL bullshit and are generally a corrupt institution.
“Revolutionary notions of divinity” were earlier simply made up, just as the orthodox notions were. A split in the church allowed new leaders to create a new spot of power for themselves. However, true atheism doesn’t have revolutionary notions of divinity. Atheism is THE default position on the divine. The position could be a transitional state, but for that to happen we would need some sort of scientific proof or reason to believe that the current held-view was wrong. But, I mean, if I had scientific proof or a good rational basis that there was likely a god, then I wouldn’t be an atheist.
May 23rd, 2005 at at 12:30 pm
I agree with Delta. For Atheism in a modern context to be considered a transitional position would require “good rational basis” to be the foundation of a new diety. I consider this extremely unlikely.
May 23rd, 2005 at at 1:14 pm
Welcome To The Blog World!
The statement ‘I do not believe in God’ is delightfully ambiguous, something like ‘I do not believe in taxes but I pay them anyway’. A Zen master would say it has the stink of ‘unsure believer’ about it.
If you want to impress as an “evangelical” atheist, you might start every post by screaming that THERE IS NO GOD. That helps to set the stage and unequivocally deny the concept of gods and their various associates such as devils and demons, souls and spirits, ghosts and angels. It also avoids endless wrangling about types of gods, beliefs, and religions that plague so many other atheist blogs.
Steve
May 23rd, 2005 at at 6:26 pm
Delta: I agree with you 100%.
May 24th, 2005 at at 12:59 am
What a wonderful book. I happened upon Karen Armstrong completely by chance in a library. I was taken aback by her treatment of the subject with such detail and candor. I did not expect that from an ex-nun.
May 24th, 2005 at at 1:05 am
By the way, I too agree with the premise that an atheist is an atheist because of a definate lack of belief in any god. If you want to split hairs, there is strong and weak atheism. Strong asserts there can be no god of a man-made, organized religion that can be taken seriously AND there is no need to include a concept of god in the known universe. Weak atheism leaves a window open for those of us who feel it is better to keep an open mind to new information concerning the possibility of a god.
May 25th, 2005 at at 9:55 am
I think you may have to add me in the Delta fanclub as well. And Steve, just for you … there is no god or anything else that goes along with it.
May 25th, 2005 at at 2:37 pm
A fanclub? We’ll definitely have to print t-shirts…
May 26th, 2005 at at 12:42 am
As a born again, militant, evangelical atheist, I think modern atheism is not only a lack of belief in a god, but a total rejection of any deity purported to have omi-powers over the universe. It includes recognition of the threat that faith in these deities creates and the desire to, at a minimum, speak up and rage against the machine.
May 26th, 2005 at at 3:26 am
this reminds me somewhat of a comment reported by Quentin Crisp. After speaking with an audience in Northern Ireland (for those not aware, a province riven by a long-standing sectarian Christian rift) and announcing to them that he was an atheist, a woman in the audience asked him:
“Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don’t believe?”
http://www.zaadz.com/quotes/topics/catholicism/ (scroll down to find it - or google for numerous other references)
May 26th, 2005 at at 1:15 pm
Modern atheism’s greatest contribution has been to declare undefinable terms such as sacred, divine, soul, God, etc. to be meaningless.
June 4th, 2005 at at 8:56 pm
boywonder uses the terms “strong” and “weak” atheist/atheism. I prefer “orthodox” and “liberal”. I am in between. I declare that there is no sentient god that can have a personal relationship with us, that designed the universe and that is going to spank all the naughty people that invoke his displeasure.
I find combating theists near imposible because when their religion is threatened, they deny the evidence long enough to quietly redefine their god and his heaven and then return to the foray as if their god is the same one they believed in all along. It’s hard to defeat a moving target. As a kid, Galileo was my hero. Before him, everone believed the universe was like a giant stadium, with man in the arena, god and satan sending their warriors to fight the great battle. Heaven was literally up in the sky. Man’s fall had only introduced imperfection here on Earth; up in heaven things were still perfect. Galileo points his telescope up in the sky to reveal that the earth is just another part of the heavens. There are other worlds besides this one.
This of course is why Jesus is taking so long to return; he keeps getting diverted to other planets where other Adams and Eves eat yet another apple and Jesus has to make a side trip to get crucified yet again. Imagine the surprise of the doubting Thomas on each successive planet who, although convinced of Jesus’s validity by sticking his hands in the holes where the nails went in, asks Jesus curiously where all the other sets of holes came from.
It’s time for a story. The identity of “god” is about to be unveiled. All the leading religious leaders have been invited to the unveiling. Of course, our hero, I Am, the high priest of the evangelical atheists is also present. The theists, who are utterly ignoring I Am, are bickering amongst themselves at to whether their particular god will be sitting in the chair of honor behind the curtain.
The momont of suspense is upon us; the curtain is raised! To reveal a giant slug, ingesting universes in its mouth and farting new ones out its anus as it crawls across the stage.
The theists yell and scream at each other to no avail. They are incensed that they were all wrong! What to do? As if on cue, they all turn to I Am, arms akimbo, and scream: “See, we told you so!”
George Skillman, San Jose, CA
gskillman@hotmail.com