| |
|
In response to sjhrbr's second post:
Yes, there is that issue. If you define God as a spirit of humanity, there is nothing solid to argue over, because that is a metaphor for a flexible philosophy (anything from humanism to nihilism could use that metaphor, and philosophers from the ancient days bang up to today use god as a metaphor). But if you think of god as a concrete idea, as many religious people do, as the creator of the Earth and all life on it, you can then be an atheist. I think Bertrand Russell's definition: "a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world" [1]. Some wishy-washy metaphor would not be a being under Russell's definition. Plus, for a god to be supreme - omnipotent and omniscient - it would have to exist. If it was a metaphor, it would not have omnipotence, as a metaphor is only as powerful as the writer who uses it. Therefore, if the defining characteristic of a supreme being is something that has omnipotence, a metaphor or loose spiritual belief would not count due to it's lack of supreme powers.
You assert that god could be anything. Logically, then, let us say God was a teapot. A teapot is essentially static. It has no discernible influence on the outside world: we can not influence it to do one thing or another (nor can it influence our decisions), it has no conscious decision making ability or ability to influence anybody else. It is not omniscient and not omnipotent, which means it does not fit the idea of being a supreme being. Why would people choose to put faith in it? What would be the purpose? They have nothing to gain from it (because a teapot could not reward them for being loyal servants) and nothing to lose from not putting faith in it (because a teapot is not powerful, it could not punish them for their disobedience).
As such, it would be ridiculous to say that God can be anything. It can be metaphorically refreshing in a soppy ecumenical kind of way, and quite a pleasant idea, but it is illogical as it denies the importance of faith - which is a key in the vast majority of religions.
Using the very loose definition that it is "anything you choose", then atheism does seem an untenable position. By being an atheist, one is advocating against 'anything you choose'. By that logic, if the anything you choose is lack of belief in a supreme being, then it would be strange to claim that an atheist is against the godly principle of atheism!
With Russell's defintion in mind, it is far easier to see why people become atheists specifically, and non-theists in general. The idea of a supreme being is, in the minds of many, a ridiculous due to it's implausibility. The chances of such a being existing are quite low. The chance of us proving the existence or otherwise of such a being are even lower than that. If you combine that with the many different faiths that people hold (if you assert the Judeo-Christian-Islam God of Abraham, how can it exist alongside that of, I dunno, Zeus or Thor? Do they, as Miles Kington suggested in The Independent the other day, have a committee meeting?)
The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought gives a good explanation of the cultural variability of atheism: "the meaning of 'atheism' is, in reality, context-specific, determined by the dominant forms of religious belief in any particular time and place. In the ancient world, the charge of atheism was levelled against the philosophical and theological opponents of polytheistic orthodoxies, including Jews and Christians, but it is their theism which constitutes the semantic background to most forms of atheism in the modern world."
To me, atheism is interconnected with Enlightenment values, a rejection of fundamentalism (of all strands) and a base that society can not be without. It is precisely this worldview which Daniel Harbour argues for [2]. The political aspects of being a non-believer are equally important. As Harbour writes: "Religious doctrine and sentiment are in the mouths of politicians and in the minds of think-tanks. If there, they are also surely on the statute book. So, while the atheist is not debating the worth of religion, while he is being accomodating, the theist is busy influencing politics and society on the basis of his or her beliefs."
[1] This definition is taken from Russell's broadcast debate with Father Coplestone which can be found in the collection of essays "Why I Am Not A Christian", and is reproduced online here.
[2] Daniel Harbour, "An Intelligent Person's Guide To Atheism". Duckbacks, 2001. |
|
|
