semantics, philosophy, cultural-identity, deconversionOne hears again and again, from prominent atheist thinkers, using good arguments such as Russell’s teapot, that atheism is simply a default position, one that best accords with the evidence. It is a negative position, given buttressing from hundreds of facts from the sciences, from evolutionary biology to cosmology. From such talk, one might think that discussion about atheism by atheists would be of the cool, detached sort when the subject of why so many claim religion comes up.
But, reading atheist forums, that’s not what I find at all. Atheism is made to be this monumental, life-changing discovery that sets one against believers for the “crimes” they commit. For example, there is lots of talk, here, on these forums, of “abuse” and “coming out” – the latter of which is a tag, where people share their personal stories.
So my question(s) is (are): If atheism is such a natural position to come to, and has so much evidence arrayed for it, why is this insight given so much emotional significance in the atheist community? Richard Dawkins wrote, in the Blind Watchmaker, that “it was impossible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist before Darwin” – but isn’t it 2011 now, more than 150 years and million more facts after The Origin? So why does atheism as a position continue to evoke such strong emotions in some atheists?
Atheism is not an easy position to come to. You’re incorrect in that assumption. It’s only in the most ‘enlightened’ and progressive societies that atheism becomes a widely available course of thinking.
The ‘natural’ course of human societies is not a rational course. It is instead a brutal, ignorant, and tribal business from which only a handful of societies have emerged. In ancient Greece and Rome at their height atheism became available as a course of thought differing from the superstition and ignorance of the society in general. When those societies fell, they took atheism with them as a mainstream school of thought. When the englightenment came along it became a mainstream course of possible thought again.
That’s exactly why atheism is a big freaking deal. It’s a big deal because it can only exist in a rationalist state, and is fragile to the darkness of theocracy and ignorance.
Theists dont come to these conclusions because rationalism and atheism puts their comfortable ignorance at risk. I distinctly remember being let down as a child, kind of deflated, when I discovered that Santa wasn’t real. Yes, it made more sense but it was magical and special that there was this red suited elf who came down a chimney. The same is true for the magical jew who leaps out of tombs or any of the other nonsense myths of theism. The believers don’t want that comfort at risk.
Additionally, the brains of some believers simply may not be wired in such as way as to make doubt in the supernatural possible - There’s some evidence that there can be circuitry in the brain that fires a bit like epilepsy and creates the illusion of ‘spiritual’ events in the diseased brains so afflicted.
Why is atheism, as a position, such a big deal to atheists?
Atheism is a big deal to those for whom it’s a big deal. I know lots of atheists and agnostics who hardly even think about their religious position, let alone discuss it, unless someone pesters them about it.
Like most “isms”, you mostly hear about atheism from the more militant, outspoken adherents who think it should be a big deal for everybody. It’s not really any different that way from, say, Christianity, where you mostly hear from a very vocal segment, and not so much from folks like my brother-in-law the very reasonable Presbyterian.
Atheism is indeed an important, non-trivial insight - if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be caught up in the culture wars going on in the US and (to a lesser extent) the UK. Really, I think that’s a lot of where the more strident opposition comes from, like Glenn Beck’s bizarre assertion on Fox that the Earth is the only planet with a moon and that proves God exists.
But there have been many such insights, like racial equality, which have shaken out over time. During the 50s and 60s in the US, there were lots of people being pro and con about racial equality and getting all worked up and combative about it, and it was a huge shocker when Kirk and Uhura kissed on TV. Decades later, there are now interracial couples all over American TV and nobody thinks twice about it, and most Americans I know would consider anybody who was outspokenly racist in public to be a total a–hole.
My experience in continental Europe is that the atheism/religion part of the culture wars is long over, and it’s now a non-issue. I hope it will get that way here in the US, too.
As Bob Murphy and Lausten said, it's only a big deal to some. Particularly in the US where theists and atheists are frequently antagonistic towards each other in the public arena.
It's important to distinguish between atheism as a logical, evidence-based position, and atheism as a secular worldview in a culture of dominant theistic worldviews, and atheism as secular political standpoint in a culture of religiously motivated political standpoints.
Those atheists aren't get emotional about atheism. They're getting emotional about the many religiously motivated incursions on their well-being. The reason has little (if anything) to do with the lack of evidence for God, and everything to do with deplorable religiously motivated morals.
There the so-called “nones”, an identified group for whom, atheism is not a big deal.
To ask the question the way you have, you would have to ignore the predominant culture. From “bless you” and “Merry Christmas” to the President of the USA using prayer to help him make decisions.
You mentioned online communities and it is possible that the nature of them attracts more people who are in situations where they are not able to find others with whom they can comfortably discuss their non-belief. If you have done any research at all, you would know how difficult that is.
Without an understanding of those two things, I don’t think you can discuss this question.
My atheism was never a big deal for me… that is until I moved to USA where atheists are the only remaining minority that can be openly and viciously bashed, demonized and treated like lower life forms without any consequences or backlash what so ever. A country where a highest elected official finds it perfectly normal to call atheists neither citizens or patriots.
When I’m faced with this level of animosity just for refusing to believe in a bunch of nonsense, it immediately becomes big f#$%*#% deal for me…
If close to 90% of people around you live in a delusion, keep on passing that same delusional world view down to their children from generation to generation, and on top of that find it perfectly normal to bash the ones who refuse to join their delusional ranks, your atheism must be a big deal and you have no choice in the matter.
Now, if you compare USA, where it is at least legal, probably even largely socially acceptable if not welcome, to be an atheist, imagine how big of a deal it is to be an atheist in places like UAE where it is not only socially unacceptable but even illegal to be an atheist and you risk losing your life for being openly atheistic…
“So why does atheism as a position continue to evoke such strong emotions in some atheists?”
Only because theism is so pervasive and creates so many problems. If this were not the case, there would be no passionate atheists.
Because in some countries it’s downright scary to ‘come out’ as an atheist. You may lose your friends, your family, your social standing, your freedom, and maybe even your life. For others, like Ricky Gervais, it’s the realisation that you’ve been knowingly or unknowingly lied to by those you’ve trusted and respected. For others it may be the knowledge that they’ve wasted a portion of their lives on a falsehood, in effect duping themselves. All of these things are emotionally charged.
The emotional significance is artificially created by the emotional significance the religious people give to their beliefs. If majority of the population was atheist, this tension would cease to exist (I saw this situation in Czech Republic). In countries like USA, it seems one has to fight tooth and nail to defend trivialities such as “There is no God”, simply because the negation of that statement is non-trivial to the other side.
Your question can be turned around, and suddenly looks like an answer: “Because atheism is such a natural position to come to, and has so much evidence arrayed for it, this insight is given so much emotional significance in the atheist community.”
So looking back to your question: Would you expect the emotional significance should be higher for unnatural positions? For positions without evidence?
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.