Atheism: What's It Good For?

   Those who call themselves religious unbelievers, some statistics claim, are increasing in a world that, at first glance, would seem to be more and more religious. Even the new president of the United States, a staunch believer himself, recognized the legitimacy of "unbelievers" as loyal Americans (wow!) (He did hesitate slightly in his delivery, however, before uttering the word -- "unbelievers"). In truth, the increase in the numbers of "unbelievers" is probably not furthered by anti-religious "atheist" zealotry so much as by a large number of unbelievers holding a common sense disbelief in religious claims or by the fact that those same unbelievers have remained untouched by a religious experience that in its mystery might over-ride common sense denials.

   Yet the "spokespersons" (for want of a better word) of "unbelief" have almost exclusively been "atheists." For some time now, I have refused to be called an "atheist" or, for that matter, an "unbeliever," "heathen," or "pagan," despite the fact that I am convinced that there is no god, and that the universe is largely (although probably not exclusively) a material one. People like me, who attempt to call themselves "humanists," largely fail in promoting themselves in a positive way, and "humanism" has largely become a euphemism for rationalism and "atheism," or at least humanism has been co-opted by atheist proponents and groups.

   So, because I would like to deny "atheism" and "atheist" as the appropriate labels for my sentiments, I must first deal with these terms as the terms of choice for both religious advocates and religion deniers. While the dictionary defines "unbeliever" as a more negative term than "atheist," I think almost everyone today would argue that "atheist" is a word freighted with more implications of stridency. Throughout the 19th century, it was a pejorative word. In more recent times, "atheist" has been equated with an active campaign of rationalism and materialism. In very recent times, an "atheist" is, with some justification, assumed to be someone who campaigns vigorously against theism and religion in general; someone who may be condescending in their scorn of religion (Dawkins), or at least look forward to a day in which their rationalist arguments will push religion into obscurity (various free thinker societies). "Atheism" as it is currently practiced in some quarters is not quite the Inquisition stood on its head, but it certainly contains elements of self-righteousness that would not be unfamiliar to John Calvin.

     If I claim to believe essentially what "atheists" believe, what is my objection? My objection is to the narrowly bitter cultural view that much of atheism promotes:  1. religious belief is based on superstition and blind faith. 2. religious belief ignores rational arguments and is anti-intellectual. 3. religion as a whole equals bigotry and intolerance. 4. religion looks backward toward tradition and therefore ignorance, while atheism is modern and looks toward the future. All of this, it should be noted, was argued as early as the eighteenth century. Not all atheists would subscribe to all of these representations, but most would have to agree with the tone. As I have said elsewhere, atheism is angry -- angry at those who ignore common sense; angry at the wars and misery religions and religious beliefs have caused. But, above all, atheists refuse to move on from their initial premise -- that there is no god and that most religion is ridiculous. Most atheists refuse to look at religion as the cultural consequence of human nature, of human experience over the millennia. Most atheists today, it seems to me, refuse to move on from their disbelief, even move on to pick through the rubble of religion to sort out the very best of love, redemption, brother/sisterhood, and morality that religion either authored or refined.

    All of this is preamble, really, to why I am bothering to write this essay at all. A recent news item (whether accurate or not may be beside the point) has claimed that the Toronto Free Thought Association has planned the production of signs declaring:  "There probably is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life." The two sentences are worth deconstruction. In trying to counter the view that atheism was "gloomy and angry," this group over-reached. Their first sentence suggests that whether there is a God or not is to be taken lightly and is of little consequence. Here they are being too disingenuous by half. The second sentence suggests that our worries originate with religious belief, or at least the belief in an all-powerful god. Successful removal of a "god-out-there" has absolutely nothing to do with the end of worrying or the end of humankind's worries -- quite the contrary. Their precept -- to "enjoy life" -- may be laudable as one of several human goals but all too many critics of atheism think that is just why atheism is dangerous -- because it is about unchecked hedonism; getting what you want now, and to hell with anyone else. So, even the re-assuringly friendly intent of this free thought slogan fails in many ways.

     For years, non-religious friends of mine and I have contended that the logical consequences of atheism are these: 1. Because there is no "god-out-there," we are even more dependent on our own intentions and good work. 2. Because there is no god to administer justice, mercy, and forgiveness, we had better pay continual attention to our own lives and societies, so that we, as imperfect human beings, can further both justice and mercy insofar, and as often, as we can. 3. With no authoritative god, we must draw from the best of human experience to be our guide, and that experience comes from many quarters, including the tenets and practices of various religions. 4. Because there is no after-life, we must make the most of this one. We must live in the moment. We must respect the integrity of our lives, and the lives of others. We must enjoy life, but in ways that will aid the enjoyment of others, and of generations to come.

     If all of these legitimate consequences of what is inelegantly called "atheism" appears to look a lot like a porridge made of the best aspects of all of the world's religions, well, in many ways it is. Hey, Rober Ebert has one helluva lot more fun in dealing with one small, small aspect of this stuff in his latest blog (Jan. 28) entitled: "In the Sweet Bye and Bye." If you read this, treat yourself to dessert -- read his.