I wonder if the 'new' atheists ever wonder what they have to pass on to the next generation. The fruit of their campaign will be the ones who come after them--the ones they have taught. The old guys like Dawkins who will soon enough disappear from the scene will then be the 'old' atheists. (They are already to tell the truth) The next generation will be the real new atheists, and I wonder what they will be like.
The problem with the atheists is they have no creed so they can have no catechesis. They have no community so they can have no church. Since they have nothing positive to believe in they have nothing positive to pass on. The atheist position is a reaction against something rather than a position for something. It is the option of emptiness and without the energy of rage it has nothing to keep it going. Without religion--especially without the Catholic Church--there would be nothing for them to talk about; nothing for them to write books about; nothing for them to protest; nothing for them to get rich speaking gigs for; nothing for them to get worked up for; nothing for them to fear.
"Ah," they say, "without religion we would be able to live in peace and freedom and help mankind move on to a higher plane of consciousness and goodness." They can do that now without being religious. Why don't they just get on with it and leave the religious people alone? "But" they protest in their self righteous way, "religious people are the ones who cause all the grief and violence and abuse in the world. We want to stop that."
I don't know. There seems to be plenty of grief and guilt and violence and abuse in the world that is done by non-religious people. Why don't they belt up and get on and help all the non-religious people who are victims of violence and rage and abuse or go on a campaign to stop all the non religious people being selfish, violent, abusive and nasty?
The atheist's problem is that without their anti-God, anti-religion rage they don't really have much staying power. Their next generation will soon drift into what I call the "real atheism"--not raging and writing books and mocking Mother Theresa and the Pope--not taking cheap shots at televangelists and Protestant fundamentalists.
The really new atheism will be the sluggardly torpor of despair. The real atheists are the seemingly sub human souls who get up in the morning; go to work; come home; watch TV; eat; have sex; sleep and start again tomorrow--never once giving God or religion or morality or the life to come one thought. Ever. These are the really new atheists, and these poor souls will be the legacy of the 'new' atheists.
And these seemingly soul less brutes are with us even now, living like zombies--and just as frightening to see.
This reminds me of something I once heard: ultimately evil will be defeated not with a bang, but a whimper. For evil is basically saying that not to exist is better than to exist. The culture of death swallows itself.
ReplyDeleteI really wonder if it is possible for humans to live as soulless brutes. Some do try but there is just no peace. Guys like Dawkins do show the inner human drive to right wrongs and replace error with truth. If Christians disappear they will have to find new villains.
ReplyDeleteI think the new atheists will be more aggressive, simply because of the push for their rights to be more decadent. The push for more homosexual rights, the transgenders, and the pedophiles want rights now too. So for increase in these--there will be increase against religions that stand in their way.
ReplyDeleteThat last bit about zombies caught my eye. I have a "new atheist" friend at work who just got a zombie pin-up girl tattooed on forearm. I suppose people get tattoos according to how they see themselves, right. I'll stick with my baptismal sign, even though I seldom live up to its calling. I rather agree with Sister, it's about to get ugly.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why, but this post reminded me of the following Dorothy L Sayers quote:
ReplyDelete“In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”
I'm leaning on the side of Father Longenecker. If you go to many parts of Europe and even North America you will find people who have no clue what Christianity is. They don't hate it or have any . They just think it's irrelevant, for the most part since Christians in those parts tend to also think it's irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at American Christianity today and compare it with 20 years ago, you'll find that the Pat Robinsons of the world have largely disappeared. One by one, Protestant denominations have either caved into modern society or circled the wagons and stopped engaging with society. Unfortunately, Catholics have done a bit of this ourselves. Although there are clear signs of Catholicism turning the corner, the old days when all movies had to have an imprimatur by some bishop before being released are long gone and won't likely return (at least in my lifetime).
The next crop of new atheists will have a hard time justifying the "religion is a threat" propaganda.
This doesn't mean that they will stop attacking. It will just mean that the reasons of attack will change from "religion" to "anyone who doesn't subscribe to the transhumanism utopia that science will provide". In this sense, Sistor Lori is an optimist, since that "utopia" (which we are already seeing signs of happening with 'therapeutic' human cloning and Pepsi using embryonic stem cells in flavour research) is far darker than even the 1st century persecution of the Church.
Regarding the second paragraph, Father, I am not sure atheists would agree. Their 'creed' and 'positive thing to believe in' is that only the material world exists (I know it can be changed into a negative statement, but that becomes our interpretation of what they believe), and they wish to push and pass on that worldview.
ReplyDeleteThey may not have a church, but they do have websites, meetings, socials, etc.
I suspect you are correct that most get their energy from rage, but many believe religion has stunted the growth of science, hurting people by inhibiting medical and scientific advances that could by now have saved or improved lives.
I think they would talk and write about science and politics, and we see from the seemingly infinite number of journals on those topics that there is no shortage of things to write about.
I know I am playing devil's advocate (or would that be 'non-existent charicature of malice's' advocate). But I also know atheists who are able to speak to their points without rage and do it out of a genuine, though misguided, belief that religion is hurtful to mankind. I guess I am saying that I would not necessarily write them off, though I do agree that one of the consequences of this 'new atheism' will be the zombie-like existence of many people.
"Since they have nothing positive to believe in they have nothing positive to pass on."
ReplyDeleteThis simply a false claim. I am an Atheist of the next generation. I am happy, fulfilled, spiritual (in a non-supernatural way), and I have many things in which I believe. I think the future is important, that we should look after it, because this is all we have.
What you are doing here is suggesting that without religion or God there is nothing good in the world.
In fact the world is full of wonderful things like love, family, friendship, good food, a beautiful sunset or great music. All of these things are natural to us as humans (and many animals) and do not require supernatural explanations.
I believe I have a wonderful vision of the universe to pass onto my children, given to me by science. I fail to see the necessity/need for God or any other supernatural power in order to be good, or to pass on this good to the future.
@Alan,
ReplyDeleteIt seems dishonest for an atheist to claim something is good. You may claim you like or prefer it, but to give it an objective label such as 'good' does not make sense. This implies there is an objective standard of 'goodness' that we can compare objects and actions against. But, if not God, where does an atheist get this standard?
I think it would be more honest for atheists to stop referring to themselves as 'good people' and start using terms like 'law-abiding', 'obedient to the majority opinion', 'biologically disposed to help others', or the like.
@Dennis
ReplyDeleteWhat is 'Good' is an incredibly complex topic and it is very presumptuous to think that you know what it means to everyone, just because you believe in a God.
If you examine the schisms and behaviours within the Christian tradition alone, it is quite clear that there is no objective sense of 'Good' at work.
'Good' is always influenced by factors such as evolutionary history (a biological disposition to help/hurt others), living conditions (a starving man steals a loaf of bread) and societal standards (Slavery, Women's treatment, treatment of indigenous peoples; to name a few practices that still existed under Christianity).
I think it is dishonest to claim that if you believe in God you automatically have some grasp on what is 'Good'. I rely on my empathy and understanding to move towards this objective, but I would never claim that I definitively know.
I would include the idea that humans are 'biologically disposed to help others' in my definition.
'law-abiding' and 'obedient to the majority opinion' on the other hand are circumstantial. Bad laws are made and majority opinions can be moronic. However, bad proclamations from those who think they know the mind of Gods have also been common, and I'm just as likely to disobey them too.
I'm working out every day what it means to be Good. The assumption that you can merely 'Know' from Gods or a book, well, it just seems too simple to me.
@Alan:
ReplyDeleteIf God exists, is the source of goodness, and has revealed it to us, it is not presumptuous or dishonest to claim to know what it is for everyone. It is simply fact. My point is that if you do not believe in God, then how can objective 'Good' exist? You claim to be 'working it out', but how can you work out something that is not there?
Pointing out that Christians have participated in horrible things in the past only means that we are not fully practicing what we believe. The difference, though, is that when we say we recognize that and are working towards becoming better people, we have an objective standard to measure ourselves against. Atheists, on the other hand, only have their personal opinion, which allows people to consider ethnic cleansing, slavery, etc good.
"If God exists, is the source of goodness, and has revealed it to us, it is not presumptuous or dishonest to claim to know what it is for everyone."
ReplyDeleteOnly if you are claiming to have direct access to the mind of God. Otherwise you're in the same position as the rest of us; attempting to interpret what Good is (good equalling God in your case). If you point to the bible you have some explaining to do (or cherry picking), if not, then where and what is this 'objective good" that you discuss?
"how can you work out something that is not there?"
Your assumption is again that I base my views on nothing. This is a bit silly to me, because, to borrow a phrase from John Donne "No man is an island". I (and all other humans) are embedded in a biological and socio-cultural matrix which has beginnings before our birth. In turn, each of us may get the opportunity to question the actions of our forefathers (and mothers), from within the safety (Hopefully) of a relatively stable culture (resting on our social biology). As Marx said: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please"
"we are not fully practicing what we believe."
This re-enforces the point I'm making. Each person is still left grasping, so where is this "objective good"? We are left to find it in the company of other humans (in a society, affected by biology) whether we believe in God or not.
Out of curiosity (and assuming that you must know since it is objective) What counts as an 'objective Good' to you?
Religion does not own community, positivity, belief or topics of discussion.
ReplyDeleteReligion is irrelevant.
With the exception of those who want it to be relevant, for them it may matter.
Is this relativist statement, "With the exception of those who want it to be relevant, for them it may matter" also relative? Or is it true?:)
ReplyDeleteI am an atheist. I wish you could meet my children, who were raised without a god.
ReplyDeleteWithout a god to appeal to, my children know it it up to them to make their world a better place. They have seen the example of their parents and their uncles, and know that "two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer".
They are "soulless brutes", but they have love, and art, and music, and a real world more amazing than anything in the imaginations of the men who wrote the bible. They cherish the one life they get, and are working to help the one life their fellow humans get, with the most powerful force we have yet found (not religion, but science).
I have great kids (well, adults now), not in spite of their atheism, but directly because of their atheism.
"Only if you are claiming to have direct access to the mind of God...."
ReplyDeleteYes this would be called the Incarnation. (cf John 14:9ff) It is an admittedly outrageous claim that we Christians make and must necessarily be either true or false. If it is false, then on our merry way we go, but if it were actually true, then it would make all the difference. Worth looking into, that.
Millions died under this atheist--so the claim that religion is the cause of the worlds problems does not exactly ring true.
ReplyDelete"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[85]"