http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/08/08/atheists-reputation-arrogance/33579
I can empathize with religious groups whose mission is to convert everyone in the world, since I think the world would be better if everyone “saw the light” of secular humanism. But whether religious or secular, I believe the best form of proselytizing is to lead by example. I think Matthew 7:16 had it right -- “By their fruits you shall know them.” What follows are two lists that relate to atheist’s interactions with religious people. The first suggests ways we can change people’s views of atheists, and the second about how, on some fronts, we’re not all that different from religionists.
I can empathize with religious groups whose mission is to convert everyone in the world, since I think the world would be better if everyone “saw the light” of secular humanism. But whether religious or secular, I believe the best form of proselytizing is to lead by example. I think Matthew 7:16 had it right -- “By their fruits you shall know them.” What follows are two lists that relate to atheist’s interactions with religious people. The first suggests ways we can change people’s views of atheists, and the second about how, on some fronts, we’re not all that different from religionists.
Rather than seek converts to atheism, I think we atheists mostly want our worldview to be respected in a culture that has at least two pretexts for disliking us.
The first is that you can’t trust atheists because they don't believe in a judging God who will reward or punish them in the afterlife.
This allegation is foolish and demeaning. I’ve been asked in conversations and on talk shows, “What keeps you from committing rape, murder, or anything else you think you can get away with?” My response is, “With an attitude like that, I hope you continue to believe in a god.”
The second pretext: atheists are arrogant intellectuals who belittle well-meaning Christians.
I acknowledge there might be some truth to this allegation. Here are some thoughts on what atheists can do to change this view:
1. We shouldn’t gratuitously bash religion or become atheist evangelists. We can answer questions about and communicate our naturalistic worldview without trying to convince others to adopt it. If questioners are open-minded enough to consider our views thoughtfully, some may convince themselves that atheism makes sense, as many of us did.
2. We should respect the right of every person to believe what makes the most sense to him or her. However ,this does not mean we need to respect the belief itself -- or condone harmful actions based on beliefs.
3. We ought to recognize that worldviews of religious people are usually more vital to them than ours are to us. For example, some theists believe that this life is just preparation for an eternal life -- which is literally more important to them than life itself.
4. We should seek common ground with religionists and work on projects of mutual interest. We are more likely to be measured by what we do than by what we say.
Here’s a personal example that led to common ground. In an op-ed in my local paper, the Charleston Post and Courier, I referred to our “Godless Constitution” and offered $1,000 to anyone who could find the words God or Jesus in it. I knew my offer would spark interest and that my money would be safe.
The newspaper’s former religion editor, Skip Johnson, wrote an op-ed trying to make a case for collecting the reward because the Constitution was signed “in the year of our Lord” (the standard way of signing important documents in the eighteenth century). He also argued that elected officials must take an “oath or affirmation” (not necessarily to God, but to uphold the Constitution). We went back and forth a couple of times and then readers on both sides wrote letters to the newspaper about our exchanges. People assumed that he and I were bitter enemies, so I suggested that we write a joint op-ed for the paper about points of agreement.
I wrote the first draft, consisting largely of selected portions from the Principles and Values of my local humanist organization. Johnson, a liberal religionist, agreed with most of what I wrote and made only minor changes.
Here is a list from our 2006 joint piece wherein we wrote up our shared viewpoints, whether we considered them part of the social gospel or secular humanism:
1. We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in an open, pluralistic, and democratic society.
2. We want to eliminate discrimination and intolerance based on race, religion, gender, nationality, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
3. We believe in helping the disadvantaged and disabled so they will be better able to help themselves.
4. We are committed to the application of reason, science, and experience, among other things, to better understand the universe and to solve human problems.
5. We respect the right to privacy and believe in the right to sexual and reproductive freedom commensurate with the acceptance of sexual and reproductive responsibility.
6. We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other living beings.
7. We are committed to the separation of religion and government.
8. We find much wisdom in the Bible, but agree that many of its stories should not be taken as literally true. Personal theology is not as important as behavior.
9. We believe negotiation and compromise are more effective than war, which must be an absolute last resort to settle differences.
10. We think the "War on Drugs" is a misguided and failed policy, just as alcohol prohibition once was. The sale of drugs to adults should be legalized, with more funding for prevention and rehabilitation programs.
In summary, we both follow a progressive and naturalistic life stance that affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical, joyful, and hope-filled lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.
The first is that you can’t trust atheists because they don't believe in a judging God who will reward or punish them in the afterlife.
This allegation is foolish and demeaning. I’ve been asked in conversations and on talk shows, “What keeps you from committing rape, murder, or anything else you think you can get away with?” My response is, “With an attitude like that, I hope you continue to believe in a god.”
The second pretext: atheists are arrogant intellectuals who belittle well-meaning Christians.
I acknowledge there might be some truth to this allegation. Here are some thoughts on what atheists can do to change this view:
1. We shouldn’t gratuitously bash religion or become atheist evangelists. We can answer questions about and communicate our naturalistic worldview without trying to convince others to adopt it. If questioners are open-minded enough to consider our views thoughtfully, some may convince themselves that atheism makes sense, as many of us did.
2. We should respect the right of every person to believe what makes the most sense to him or her. However ,this does not mean we need to respect the belief itself -- or condone harmful actions based on beliefs.
3. We ought to recognize that worldviews of religious people are usually more vital to them than ours are to us. For example, some theists believe that this life is just preparation for an eternal life -- which is literally more important to them than life itself.
4. We should seek common ground with religionists and work on projects of mutual interest. We are more likely to be measured by what we do than by what we say.
Here’s a personal example that led to common ground. In an op-ed in my local paper, the Charleston Post and Courier, I referred to our “Godless Constitution” and offered $1,000 to anyone who could find the words God or Jesus in it. I knew my offer would spark interest and that my money would be safe.
The newspaper’s former religion editor, Skip Johnson, wrote an op-ed trying to make a case for collecting the reward because the Constitution was signed “in the year of our Lord” (the standard way of signing important documents in the eighteenth century). He also argued that elected officials must take an “oath or affirmation” (not necessarily to God, but to uphold the Constitution). We went back and forth a couple of times and then readers on both sides wrote letters to the newspaper about our exchanges. People assumed that he and I were bitter enemies, so I suggested that we write a joint op-ed for the paper about points of agreement.
I wrote the first draft, consisting largely of selected portions from the Principles and Values of my local humanist organization. Johnson, a liberal religionist, agreed with most of what I wrote and made only minor changes.
Here is a list from our 2006 joint piece wherein we wrote up our shared viewpoints, whether we considered them part of the social gospel or secular humanism:
1. We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in an open, pluralistic, and democratic society.
2. We want to eliminate discrimination and intolerance based on race, religion, gender, nationality, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
3. We believe in helping the disadvantaged and disabled so they will be better able to help themselves.
4. We are committed to the application of reason, science, and experience, among other things, to better understand the universe and to solve human problems.
5. We respect the right to privacy and believe in the right to sexual and reproductive freedom commensurate with the acceptance of sexual and reproductive responsibility.
6. We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other living beings.
7. We are committed to the separation of religion and government.
8. We find much wisdom in the Bible, but agree that many of its stories should not be taken as literally true. Personal theology is not as important as behavior.
9. We believe negotiation and compromise are more effective than war, which must be an absolute last resort to settle differences.
10. We think the "War on Drugs" is a misguided and failed policy, just as alcohol prohibition once was. The sale of drugs to adults should be legalized, with more funding for prevention and rehabilitation programs.
In summary, we both follow a progressive and naturalistic life stance that affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical, joyful, and hope-filled lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.
