Atheism "primarily an episode in the decline of Christianity"

[Don Claybrook]

This should get both the Christians and athiests going. I think it's a very good point, personally. What are your thoughts?

This is from the sidebar called "Among the Unbelievers" on page 53 of the print edition of this month's Utne Reader, by Jeremiah Creedon:

"(John) Gray, a professor of European thought at the London School of Economics, calls atheism 'primarily an episode in the decline of Christianity.' As a 'mirror image of Western monotheism,' atheism 'shares many of its worst features,' including dogmatic followers who fear uncertainty no less than death. 'Happily, the athiest revival depends for its vitality on the primitive religiosity to which it is a response,' Gray concludes, 'and when that sputters out we can look forward to being rid of unbelief as well.' "

[displacedtexan]

1. I do not fear uncertainty.

I plan to spend my bit of eternity as high grade compost, thank you very much!

My beef with primitive religiosity: Leave the only life I have alone.

[Don Claybrook]

5. I understand your beef

I think, though, that what this guy Gray was trying to say was that there would be no need for you or any other athiest to get up in arms if it weren't for the existence of fundamentalist Christianity. Further, he's implying that Christianity is on its way out, sooner or later, and that we'll be able to drop all of this Christian/athiest stuff and get on with the important business of finding our own spirituality, or not.

For what it's worth, I'm neither a Christian nor an athiest. I'm spiritual, if you will, closer to Buddhism than anything else I've read about, but not a practicing Buddhist.

[WillowTree]

2. Right.

After all, we all know that atheism is a new thing.

[UdoKier]

6. Last I heard, all humans are born atheist.

NT

[Marnieworld]

of course it's new

since we all start out believing and only through years of indoctrination do we become atheists.

/sarcasm off
;-)

[eallen]

3. As an atheist, I think that is partly accurate and partly not.

(1) There are a broad variety of atheists, and a broad variety of thinking that goes under that label. Some of this, such as communism and Objectivism, is every bit as ideological as Christianity.

(2) On the other hand, I think Gray, or at least that snippet yanked from his writing, misses the sense in which people, after a certain point, can move beyond ideology. It might be that if I read more of what he meant, or if he and I discussed it a bit, that disagreement would resolve into just semantic differences.

[Don Claybrook]

10. r.e. Gray

There was only one paragraph prior to the one I excerpted, and it was mostly a setup for the one you see here. So I don't know anything about Mr. Gray beyond what is printed here.

But my reading of the short text makes me think you agree with Mr. Gray. I think there are people (and we can call them athiests, or Xergs, or whatever) who have ideologically moved beyond the dualistic athiest v christian thing.

Or it could be that I'm misunderstanding either you, Mr. Gray, or both. In any case, thanks for the reply.

[eallen]

There are a broad variety of ideologies, and then there is...

There are a broad variety of ideologies, and then there is learning to think in a fashion that is not ideological, which is an ongoing struggle. Some ideologies are theistic. The term "atheist" can be used to describe both (a) the remaining ideologies, and (b) non-ideological thought.

In my view, getting over the ideology trap is more important than theist-atheist distinction. Communism is no better than Christianity as an ideology, just because it arguably lacks any gods.

[Maple]

4. I find this one funny

How did a simple lack of belief get to be 'dogmatic' or a response to 'primitive religiosity'

And if we get rid of both 'belief' and 'unbelief'...that would leave us in a state of.....what?

People don't believe in unicorns either. But nobody makes a big deal of it with similar ridiculous pronouncements.

[Don Claybrook]

13. Should the word agnostic come into play here?

We don't get rid of belief and unbelief. I believe he's referring to belief in a prescribed set of beliefs, or dogma. I can't say for certain, but it sounds as though the guy is talking about getting to a point of individual, personal belief, not something that's spoon-fed from some church or another.

And despite your protestations, there are those who not only "don't believe", but also take umbrage at Christians for their beliefs. My opinion is that this is a pretty valid point, not for all cases, but for a good many.

[phantom power]

7. That doesn't sound like any atheists that I know.

My personal opinion: People who say "atheists are just as dogmatic as theists" are indulging in projection.

I'm personally quite comfortable with uncertainty, certainly at the philosophic level.

[sui generis]

8. oh goody!

I wasn't sure but now I know. All atheists are exactly alike and can easily be generalized, just like those pesky christians.

There are people everywhere who take things to extremes. The difference between atheists and believers though actually is a matter of faith.

Point of correction - atheism is not in contrast to primitive religiosity. Neither atheism nor faith require the opposite to survive. The good professor should study a bit more before professing.

[Don Claybrook]

15. There are dogmatic athiests

I'm replying to you, but hoping this also serves as a response to some of the other posts.

All you have to do is look right here in GD to see that there are pretty dogmatic athiests, just as there are dogmatic Christians. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

And yes, the professor made a generalization, but we all do that, and it's ok--I don't think he's saying that his statement applies to every athiest ever to draw a breath.

Could we agree that there are "active" and "passive" athiests, some who are completely opposed to Christianity, some who don't care one way or another what Christians think, so long as no one is forcing them to believe?

[sui generis]

17. well while I agree with you

I still have to pass judgement on the article. It served no purpose but to misdirect.

Also, atheists are constantly under assault by what we perceive as irrationality. To merely have an opinion or to declare openly that we are atheist is enough to be called an "active" atheist to some.

How about, could we agree that there are many many more rude christians than atheists? I certainly don't recall any history lessons about atheists rounding up christians and burning them at the stake.

[Don Claybrook]

19. Yes, I can and do agree with that

There are many more rude Christians than there are rude athiests.

As to your last point, here's something from the paragraph previous to the one I posted:

"But atheism is no cure for mass violence. Nazism, Maoism, and Soviet communism were as deadly as the most primitive religions, perhaps because that's what they quickly became."

[sui generis]

23. those political systems were inherently flawed though

their violence had nothing at all to do with christianity or secularism and much more to do with the ruthless exercise of power and fear. However, I do believe that secular humanism in principle is the cure for extremist forms of government.

[BurtWorm]

35. Nazism was not atheistic.

Let's just hang that particular canard out to dry.

[info being]

9. I don't care much for people calling "lack of something" "something"

To have X is not the same as to not have X. They are opposites.

[YankeyMCC]

11. Atheism has a longer

history than christianity.

But I'll accept that nontheists are becoming louder and more active in response to religious fundamentalism xian or otherwise.

But whenever someone talks about "dogmatic followers" of atheism it clearly demonstrates they don't have a clear understanding of what atheism is and who are atheists.

[jonnyblitz]

16. exactly. nt

[arwalden]

25. Those Two Words Raise Red Flags With Me As Well.

[phantom power]

12. I'd like to know more about his claim that atheism is "new".

How would he know? Is there no evidence of atheists in Asia, or the middle east?

In fact, as I recall, there were atheist writings from ancient Greece, 2000 years ago.

[BurtWorm]

14. This is not a "revival" of atheism we're in the midst of.

There may be a death of Christianity or theism going on, but atheism is on the rise as a direct result of the Enlightenment, and it's a positive development, not a reactionary one.

This Gray guy's wishful thinking is showing. He makes the mistake of thinking atheism is about certainty of an absence. It's more about taking care around what to be certain about, which requires developing a kind of comfort with uncertainty.

[Don Claybrook]

18. Thanks

You make an interesting point. Again, I think that most religion is bunk, but at the same time I'm not an athiest, so I'm not able to clearly see all facets of this. But I like your assertion about finding comfort with uncertainty, which is something I can get behind.

Still, I think that some percentage of athiests have assumed the role of the antithesis of what Christianity has become, a reactionary stance, whether positive or not.

[BurtWorm]

20. You may be right about that.

I can see how a Christian, for example, would become annoyed with all those derisive references to pink unicorns and sky fairies.

Once upon a time, not all THAT long ago, actually, the majority of church-going Christians in the US were not raving lunatics. They seemed much more tolerant of nonbelief than their descendants in what the country has become. They also seemed much more self-assured in their own beliefs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Both are egomaniacs.

I find it amazing that we pipsqueeks of the universe have the temerity to issue proclamations stating there is a God or that there isn't a God (Life force, power, clock-starter, whatever one wishes to call "it").

We geniuses who can't even figure out a way to stop killing each other, dare to state unequivically that God is or isn't. Worse, the religious tell us what God is, what *He* thinks, what *He* wants, etc.

As if God or the universe gives a roaring rip what we believe.

[info being]

24. Agnosticism is the only sane belief system.

We cannot know and should accept that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Agreed. I'll take a quark of that with an infinity chaser.

But, man's desire to control everything leads him to try and command the universe by "understanding" it.

Here we are, beings living on a speck of a planet, circling an insignificant sun, circling in an equally insignificant galaxy made up of billions of other insignificant stars, lost in billions of other galaxies, yet we seem to think that we are the center of it all.

The pomposity of the thought is like the flea munching on the elephant thinking he's steering it.

[info being]

32. Indeed

Even more ridiculous than the flea.

Even if there is a God, would he really punish us for maximizing our natural potential instead of spending our lives guessing about that which is unknowable.

We need to accept and even respect our own nature. That is the only way to achieve contentedness and peace and live according to our creative force: evolution.

[BiggJawn]

22. So, when primitive religosity and unbelief "sputter out"...

What does the Learned Professor Gray propose to fill their place?

This is an interesting phrase:
"mirror image of Western monotheism"
I get it! Religion's "Evil twin, Skippy"!

I used to think, 20-odd years ago, that Utne was just too deep for my feeble mental powers, even after consuming a year's sub.

I think the problem was the noise from my on-board bullshit detector was distracting me.

[rman]

26. "being rid of unbelief" - What the heck is that supposed to mean?

What is supposed to happen after the atheist episode is over?

Is it that this guy claims after "primitive religiosity" and atheism, there will be "belief"?

[SmokingJacket]

27. He's looking at atheism through the frame of Christianity.

It reminds me of when I was a non-churchgoing kid in a small town. Other kids used to tell me: "You're going to HELL!!"

I used to wonder if they honestly thought that would scare me, since my sin was not believing in that stuff in the first place.

"we can look forward to being rid of unbelief as well" Speak for yourself!

Atheism is not organized, and so it has no dogma. I think the more accurate term might be "opinionated atheist."

[Pithlet]

28. "being rid of unbelief"

That's all I needed to see. :puke:

[Don Claybrook]

29. AND belief

I think the guy, even if he (and I, by extension) pissed a lot of people off, has left food for thought. Seems to me he's advocating being rid of both belief and unbelief.

And I'm late for a meeting.

[Pithlet]

30. That makes no sense.

The natural state of being is atheism. If Christianity, and all other theistic religions putter out and die, atheism is still there, and bigger than ever.

I guess you posted too small of a bit to really be sure what his point is. I think he's way off base in insisting that atheism is just as dogmatic as Christianity. How can the absence of belief be dogmatic? That's all atheism is.

This post came at a rather volatile time. Atheist DUers took a beating on this board yesterday.

[info being]

33. It depends upon how you define atheism.

If Atheism means defining for certain that God does not exist, it is as ridiculous as religion. If it is used synonymously with Agnosticism (accept the fact that you can't know) then you are right.

[ultraist]

37. Gray defined atheism as merely non belief

He failed to include that atheists use reason to establish their ethical code, therefore they do possess a moral compass. Atheism is about more than not believing in a supernatural being.

I agree with Smoking Jacket, this author is describing atheism from a Christian point of view. It's weak.

[Pithlet]

39. Atheism means without belief in a god.

That is the natural state of being. A person, if no one had ever told him/her about God, or any god for that matter, and were for some reason not able to find this information for him/herself, would be atheist. Attempts to make that a religion are ridiculous. Are some people enthusiastic in their claim that there is no God? Certainly. But that doesn't change the definition of atheism.

[JNelson6563]

34. Lotta words to say nothing

What a pompous, ignorant fool. There are few things as base and primitve in believing we never die cause we're too a'skeer'd. Ugh.

Hard for me to suffer such fools.

Julie

[DireStrike]

36. He may be right about dogmatic atheism being linked to dogmatic theism

As I see it.

Other than that, I don't agree with him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. And what is dogmatic atheism?

How can something that is unorganised have dogmas?

[Malva Zebrina]

40. Gee, I don't fear uncertainty

I embrace uncertainty. I find it exciting.

It is typically egoistic that those who believe think that atheists are "responding" to them.