Atheists: define yourselves

By Anne Robertson

If only for the sake of intellectual rigor, I wish atheists would find another name for themselves—one that provides some positive content for their worldview. If you don’t believe in God, what do you believe in? Are you a Universal Vacuumist? Cohesive Randomite? Christians should not leave their beliefs unexamined, and neither should atheists. Do atheists really believe there is nothing ultimate in the universe, or are they just reacting against one definition of the ultimate? Atheists, define yourselves.

While they’re at it, atheists might note that religion and faith are two different things: religion is merely the vehicle that human beings have created to convey the message of faith. It has significant flaws, as one might expect from a human creation, but so do other vehicles in our society. Just because the vehicle is in need of repair doesn’t mean the cargo is not worth delivering.

Is our health care system making people healthier? Is our legal system dispensing justice? Those vehicles are so badly in need of reform that they often hinder the very causes they were created to help. Yet I don’t hear people claiming that there is no truth in medicine or that justice is idealistic nonsense. How come only God gets the axe? Why do a-theists emerge only when religion proves to be flawed—where are the a-medics and a-jurists?

Avowed atheists like Christopher Hitchens spend a lot of time attacking creeds and texts and miracles, seemingly unaware that while those things are important, they are not the crux of faith—at least not of Christian faith. At the center of Christian faith is not a “what” but a “who.” Most Christians cling, not to the creeds written about him but to Jesus himself. Christian faith is about relationship with God, and not about doctrine.

If it weren’t for the tendency of atheists to paint themselves as intellectually superior to people of faith, I would be a little more forgiving of them, since many Christians make the same mistake. But people who want to disprove a scientific theory should spend years studying it before making their proclamations; a rigorous study of Christian faith in some of its historical and nonevangelical forms would show many of their critiques to be quite limited in scope.

In an interview printed in the Boston Globe, science writer and avowed atheist Natalie Angier said, “I think it’s legitimate to see the universe as wanting to know itself.” Apparently while trying to clear the broken vehicle of religion off the road, some of the cargo rubbed off on her. I would encourage her in her quest.

Anne Robertson is executive director of the Massachusetts Bible Society and author of Blowing the Lid Off the God-Box and God’s Top 10: Blowing the Lid Off the Commandments.

Comments

[John C. Bonser]

Whenever I read too much by or about the militant atheists I pull "Chance and Providence" by William Pollard (published in the late 50s). Dr. Pollard, a physicist in Oar Ridge, TN and an Episcopalian Priest, certainly isn't weak minded. Yet he is a scientist and a man of faith.

[Jason Byassee]

Universal vacuumists: love it!
I liked Nica Lalli's book Nothing: Something to Believe in. She's a happy athiest, and actually believes in much more than she lets on: benevolence toward humanity, love for family and friends, etc. In short she tried to define herself more positively (she's "nothing") but isn't really a nihilist, since she's not in despair.
Hitchens sounds more like Falwell all the time in his arrogance and disdain for genuine difference.

[Lyndon]

What is it that Stan Hauerwas says . . . because Christians are not all that interesting most of the time, why should we be surprised that we don't encounter interesting atheists? Perhaps it's the other Stan (Fish) who got it right recently in his blog for the New York Times; notoriety in the public eye is worth more than truthful engagement when it comes to the recent spat of writings against God and religion. (NYT, June 10, 2007)

[Jason Byassee]

Also see Eugene McCarraher's brilliant undoing of Christopher Hitchens at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1962.

[Michael Redmond]

Bravo! A fine article. Especially the differentiation between faith and religion. Atheists are not the only ones who do not understand this. The media does not (note the recent "faith" events with the presidential candidates) and, seemingly, neither does the average person. The most striking example I heard was last night on, I believe, NBC Nightly News. They were interviewing people about the Vatican's 10 commandments about driving. One guy said, "they ought to stick to religion."

[mobathome]

For a-medics, please consider Christian Scientists. And yes, I'm sure you can find a-jurists as a religious group.

[The Catholic Atheist]

I think it uncouth to assume that all atheists are so myopic or militant.

It would also seem that theists cannot define themselves positively. They are defining clearly their position on the belief in an ultimate transcendental. How can you define positively a negative position?

Finally, if you like I have recently posted on my site why atheism is neither a simply intellectual nor moral issue. See the link