W Post
Atheists at the pulpit
* By Sigfried Gold
* October 3, 2013
We are at a moment in history where it is clear that new religions are
going to be created in a big way. The growing 20 percent of Americans with no
religious affiliation may not want new religions, but the existence of such
a huge market of potential converts to something other than the traditional
choices guarantees that people will be inventing new religions to win
these converts like never before. The last 80 years have been unprecedented in
humanity’s generation of new religions already, and we are on the verge of
something much bigger than that.
The market for new religions is so hot at the moment that atheists are
getting into the act. Alain de Botton’s 2012 book “Religion for Atheists”
exhorts nonbelievers to replicate the comforts of religion–the choirs, the
beautiful architecture, the mutual aid and charity, rituals to mourn the dead–
without all the faith claptrap. The _Sunday Assembly and Jerry De Witt’s
atheist church are two efforts that have received recent press_
(http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/12/former-pastor-jerry-dewitt-will-h
ost-an-atheist-church-service-in-louisiana/) . I am personally more
sympathetic to Religious Naturalism or the Spiritual Naturalist Society, but I
applaud all these developments, being an atheist who is particularly friendly
toward religion in general. But I worry that some of the new religions or
quasi-religions in the works may replicate some of the worst qualities of
the old ones.
To my mind there is one measure by which religions can be judged that is
arguably more important than all others: does it truly treat other religions
and non-religious belief systems with respect and friendliness, refraining
entirely from claiming that it holds exclusive or privileged access to the
truth? This measure, I posit, is most important because without it, any
claim that a religion makes to universal love, brotherhood, humanity, etc., is
contradicted by the attitude its believers will take towards others with
different beliefs.
Many forms of Buddhism do well by this measure, as well as do Unitarian
Universalism, the more recent Jewish denominations, Ethical Culture. Most of
the mainline Protestant churches are moving in this direction. The current
Pope seems to be pushing the Catholic church this way. Some Sufi and
progressive forms of Islam acknowledge the legitimacy of other faiths.
Atheists have an amazing opportunity in this regard. It takes a
considerable amount of philosophical sophistication for a believer to worship
a God
while granting that contrary beliefs have just as much claim on the truth as
her own. For atheists and agnostics, though, this can be easy. There
certainly are plenty of atheists who hold believers in utter disdain, but
others,
with no cognitive dissonance, can formulate their own beliefs without
making any claims about the existence or non-existence of other people’s gods.
There may seem to be a contradiction in my own stance here: a claim to some
superiority for some religions and viewpoints based on my preferred
measure. I can’t deny it entirely, but I can say that I have tremendous
respect
for people and religions who fail to one degree or another by this measure.
I would like to see all the world’s religions evolve in this direction of
not claiming exclusive truth. But, in the meantime, I think much is to be
valued and celebrated in the religions that haven’t gotten there yet (and
maybe never will.) Values are values. I can believe in, argue for, and even
fight for my values without claiming that mine have some objective priority
over yours.
Atheists creating new quasi-religions have an opportunity to take this
stand. The question is, will they?
Richard Dawkins and his ilk express contempt for religion at every turn,
but the atheists starting quasi-religions will, I believe, mostly claim the
kind of pluralist stance I advocate. But can they be trusted on this score?
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do they foster attitudes of acceptance
for, respect for, or cooperation with people of strongly opposing views? Or
do they use the incredibly powerful tendency of people to band together
against a common enemy to foster a sense of belonging in their communities
that feeds on disapproval of the moral, political or intellectual
backwardness of evangelicals?
The _New York Times recently profiled the new director of the Humanist
Community Project at Harvard. _
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/us/after-a-crisis-of-faith-finding-a-new-secular-mission.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0)
I
applaud her goal of fostering communities that “help us connect with one
another more deeply, to spur us to act in the interest of the common good, and
to change the way we think about values and purpose in a world where
traditional religion is no longer vital for us.” Sadly, her career at Harvard
seems to have ended before it began, due to _some resume padding on her part.
_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/us/minister-admits-overstating-her-creden
tials.html?smid=pl-share) The gold rush mentality I’m describing is bound
to lead to some moral embarrassments here and there, but this is a minor
growing pain in a movement that seems poised for dramatic growth. The effort
to spread atheist quasi-religious communities will be continued by others,
including James Croft. He visited DC recently with a talk he’s been giving
around the country called “_God is Dead. So What?_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Tv4Ot5_rA) ” He is an engaging, funny,
charismatic preacher, but
one of his primary points in arguing for atheist congregations is that we
atheists need our own churches, our own “_echo chambers for values_
(http://americangrace.org/) ” to combat the political power of the religious
right.
I have no interest in defending the political efforts of the religious
right. I believe they make a travesty of their own religions. And I fully
admit
that the marriage of religion and politics can sometimes create larger and
more politically potent communities than either on their own. But what I
value in religion is lost in such a marriage. I come to religion to learn to
love people different from myself, not to combat them. Religions have done
great and amazing things in the name of social justice, but Martin Luther
King _showed more compassion for his racist jailers than Croft_
(http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_the_drum_major_
instinct/) shows for conservative Christians. At this particular moment
in history, the combination of religion and politics is overwhelmingly
toxic. Important political struggles can be effectively fought with political
movements and organizations. Religions need to be held to their claims of
tolerance and universal love. The moral high ground in using quasi-religions
to battle the intolerance of the religious right can be gained by showing
tolerance for the religious right–and a willingness to sincerely discuss
their commitment to their own Christian values.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
