“Militant Atheism”?
June 16, 2007 4:33 pmThere is a term that tends to be deployed when referring to atheists in American society, who have the apparent audacity of publicly iterating their convictions. It is the referring expression, militant atheists; a phrase used to designate any instance where atheology is defended or supported by an interlocutor, who demonstrates a cognitive disposition that indicates that he or she fails to be immured in the theism that has taken a center stage in the public discourse throughout this Country’s history.
The connotative implications of using such a phrase to refer to atheists who fail to ‘politely’ remain hidden in their bedroom closets; instead, mustering the courage to openly articulate their lack of beliefs, and, further, argue against the pervasively reinforced second class position they assume in American society; is more than transparent: Atheists fall outside of the spectrum of ideological manifestations that are considered to be demonstrative of reasonability and rationality. In other words, atheists are a breed comparable to fanatical Islamists - who commit violent acts of terror - or, individual anarchists - who carry out assassination attempts upon government officials.
The ultimate effect engendered by these crude, implicit comparisons indicated by the phrase, militant atheists, is the persistent identification of atheists under a social label, which renders their skepticisms and the polemics they put forth against their socially legitimized marginalization in American society as expressions that should be interpreted as outside the rationally treatable; falling, alternatively, in the regions inhabited by the delusional madman who rants and raves on the street corner.
Despite the best attempt of religious leaders to portray atheists according to the stereoypical forms that are used as representations of cognitive illness and pathology, the looking glass could not be more transparent. I have no knowledge of any war that has been waged by atheists; although I can think of innumerable wars that have been conducted under the sanctums of religiosity. To intransigently insist upon the existence of invisibles - which cannot be demonstrated through any appeal to empirical evidence - is certainly not a criticism that can be aptly leveled against atheists; although it is by all means an inescapable aspect belonging to the discourses produced under the auspices of religion. Atheists point to reality and experience when arguing the validity of their conclusions; the pious revert to faith, dogma, and knowledge based on authority, in order to propagate their prejudices.
To take the argument a step further, Catholic Universities often insert in their mission statements a principle that serves within the institutional philosophy they stake out as a premise for all of their ensuing intellectual engagements. To paraphrase in a modality that goes beyond giving the proposition justice: Faith and reason do not contradict one another, and are, contrarily, mutually compatible and amenable to each other’s interests.
I am prepared to assert that nothing could be farther from reality. The pursuit of knowledge is never founded upon convictions of faith. Instead, it is skepticism that serves as the antecedent for knowledge. It is the ability to hold to scrutiny the narratives that have traditionally served as an explanation for the ordering of cosmos. Knowledge flows from criticality toward that which has - as its only pillars of support - legitimation based upon tradition and authority. Faith is not an extension, or co-pillar, of reason; but, rather, the antipathy to reason; the manifestation of ignorance.
Consequentially, the terminology, militant atheists, should be understood not as an expression that refers to the elements in society who possess the intellectual tenacity to hold to scrutiny the mythology that continues to dominant the worldviews possessed by the religious; the flocks of mindless followers. To the contrary, the unfortunate phrase is best understood as the projection upon the reasoned and rational, by those who lack such lucid deliberations, of the very shortcomings that impede the intellectual maturation of the faithful.
Just remember, atheists did not launch the Crusades. Atheists have not burnt people alive on the stakes. Atheists do not instruct the meager to turn the other cheek in hopes of rewards that consist entirely of invisible conditions in some posit called the afterlife.
Atheists are, in fact, the living embodiments of the temperaments that the religious claim to possess but fail to embody.
Russell Cole
If you enjoyed this post,
Subscribe to the Free Midwest Populist Party Newsletter
Please consider a donation of $1 or more
to help keep this website active.
Spread the Word:
17 Responses to ““Militant Atheism”?”
“Atheists are, in fact, the living embodiments of the temperaments that the religious claim to possess but fail to embody.”
What about Stalin? I’m not arguing that his atheism was the cause of atrocities he was involved in. But, he was atheist and he did to these things.
Simply not believing in a God does not automatically equate to some perfected living embodiment. Atheists, as well as non-atheists, have beliefs which are not related to their belief or dis-belief in God and influence their actions.
“Faith is not an extension, or co-pillar, of reason; but, rather, the antipathy to reason; the manifestation of ignorance.”
Logic and reason are not enemies of faith, and to insist that they are is no different than saying that “anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.”
You are right, in my view, to take umbrage at the use of “militant atheist” as a pejorative. However, painting all people of faith as stupid in the same breath exposes you (also rightly) to a charge of hypocrisy.
You want your views to be respected - that’s reasonable. Demanding a courtesy that you are not willing to extend to others is not.
“Just remember, atheists did not launch the Crusades. Atheists have not burnt people alive on the stakes.”
PLEASE STATE HOW STALIN, MAO, POL POT, ETC. KILLED OVER 100 MILLION LAST CENTURY IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM.
Wait, didn’t Stalin kill in the name of something else - worship of the state?
To claim he killed in the name of Atheism is either ignorance or intentionally misleading.
Trying to root out other religions was not his end goal, they were simply competition that he was trying to eliminate in his quest for a new world “religion” - communism.
Um, Stalin anyone?
Micheal,
Joseph Stalin went on a huge anti-religious campaign that involved the murder of about 100,000 clergy between the years of 1917 and 1935. And that is just the clergy, and just between those years. No one knows the true number of those slaughtered under his rule, but it is astronomical. To claim that anti-religious campaigns carried out by a leader who believed in an atheistic philosophy (and was carrying it out by force) has nothing to do with atheism is patently absurd. I truly hope you are not that ignorant.
Of course atheists can act morally, as can theists, and there is no necessary connection between atheism and mass slaughter. But then again, there is no necessary connection between theism and crimes carried out by theists either. A little reflection goes a long way…
Thomas:
I disagree - but I guess it’s all perspective.
I believe that Stalin killed in the name of a new religion - world communism. The way I see it is just how I stated above - Stalin was eliminating religious competition for the new religion.
In Stalin’s Soviet Union, the State was god.
All government-backed mass murderers, from my own studies, killed in the name of some ideology - and I look at that as nothing less than religion. Whether it’s Christianity, Islam, Communism, Democracy, Fascism or Corporatism…..
You may disagree, but that’s my position.
“PLEASE STATE HOW STALIN, MAO, POL POT, ETC. KILLED OVER 100 MILLION LAST CENTURY IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM.”
But they didn’t do it in the name of atheism. Pol Pot in particular tried to get rid of the educated along with the religious, and communist ideology was anti-religion mainly because it was perceived as a mechanism by which the lower classes were controlled by the upper classes. In Soviet Russia in particular suppression of religion was less about ideology per se and more about removing any connection to a separate authority that might go above the state, hence the Russian Orthodox Church was at times allowed to exist because it could be used as a political tool.
All of which is very different from the contemporary atheism espoused by the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, in the same way that your typical sane modern protestant is very different from a bloody crusader, an Islamic terrorist, or an abortion clinic bomber.
I would first like to apologize to the elements of religion who fell victim to my hyperbolic attack. However, I can assure you that I did not intend to subsume under my criticisms the moderate Protestant, who practices his faith without feeling the compulsion to use it as a political device to impose an agenda upon others who might not share in his or her convictions. And, if you take care in reading what I wrote, I referred exclusively to “Church Leaders.”
I think that Mike has hit the nail right on the head. To state that someone was an atheist and committed crimes against humanity misses the point entirely. It was not atheist fervor that motivated Lenin to commit atrocities - most of which have been grossly overstated by ideologically driven Western historians. Lenin was attempting to eradicate a threat to his revolution. Further, the fact that organized religion in Russia posed a threat to anything endangering the Czarist status quo is anything but contraversial, because the Orthodox Church was an extension of Czarist Russia.
To move on to the real object of my polemic: The Catholic Institution cares about two things: Its own survival and its control over its members, who fill its coffers. I would challenge anyone to cite a single historical instance where the Roman Catholic Church has done anything worthy of mention for the improvement of humanity. I am not including in this challenge mavericks who might have done good deeds. Rather, I am referring the institution that its the Catholic Church. The Papacy and all of the other Church Officials, who prefer to do all of their decision making behind closed doors are too busy telling the oppressed to turn the other cheek, so not to endanger the Church, itself, which, apparently takes precedence in its own preservation and the flocks it is supposed to be leading take a distant secondary role in any such considerations.
Russell Cole
- “Atheists are, in fact, the living embodiments of the temperaments that the religious claim to possess but fail to embody.”
Does anybody seriously believe that everyone will hold hands and sing happy songs and live happily ever after if everybody were an atheist? No more atrocities or wars or crime, everybody is happy?
Why on earth should I start treating my fellow human beings better if atheism is true? If atheism is true, then I don’t give a shit who I step over, use, abuse cos all that matters are these few short moments I have and I’m gonna get the most out of them, and who cares what happens to anyone else. Besides, other people are just collocations of matter and any suffering they experience is really just tiny electrical impulses in their brains, and what the hell does that matter, anyway?
to Garth:
Atheists are people like anybody else. Religious or not, people have a conscience. I know that I do. I don’t go through life stepping over others or abusing people. In fact, it is BECAUSE I believe this life is all we have to experience that I try to act well towards others, and I’m okay with the fact that many people I know are religious. I hope your attitude towards atheists changes for the better.
‘Logic and reason are not enemies of faith, and to insist that they are is no different than saying that “anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.”’
faith –noun
2. belief that is not based on proof
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
rea·son –noun
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
–verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason
My apologies for the degree of vagueness - the definitions of logic and reason are somewhat circular.
The point still stands however.
Why is there an argument to to be made that faith and reason/logic are mutually exclusive?
By DEFINITION faith is believing something with no supporting evidence. To put it emotively, creating new knowledge out of thin air.
By DEFINITION logic/reason is a process for creating new knowledge out of demonstrable facts.
This isn’t to say that a single person can’t be both rational and possess faith. It does however say that a process of gaining an individual piece of knowledge can’t both be based on faith AND reason. This isn’t a particularly subjective claim - it simply follows from the largely self evident truth that either knowledge has some evidence backing it or it doesn’t.
RE: Garth
“Does anybody seriously believe that everyone will hold hands and sing happy songs …”
If that floats your boat, go to it.
Don’t be surprised then if I may on occasion consider you to be an ugly bag of mostly water that is if no matter in the grand scheme of things if I puncture, step on etc…
The point is atheism isn’t a religion, it isn’t a dogma, it isn’t an ideology and it isn’t a book of rules by which you should behave.
How should you behave then ?
It’s up to you.
But a lot of reasonable people who happen to be atheists turn out to be nicer to each other than believers, dogmatic adherents, ideological parrots and followers of fashion because maybe just maybe they think that we’re in this together, that competition and coopearation exist at the same time, that life is a balance, that one sinlge tenet of “do unto others how you’d have them do unto you” is basically all that is required to enjoy your life living with others, sharing joy and pain, helping your brothers and sisters, defending the weak, defeating the bullies and all the other aspects that make life worth living.
Other than that, you can take my “ultimate decider” challenge :
This statement is true because I define idiot and arsehole to be mutually exclusive.
“The world is divided into idiots and arseholes.”
Which category do you place yourself in ?
I will not provide definitions as that defeats the purpose.
But if you don’t “get it”, then that’s not my problem and if you do, then hopefully you’ll have a wry smile on your face.
Me? I count myself as a idiot. Always have been and always will be.
If you want some guidance then I suggest this:
- find out what Buddhism and Taosism is all about.
- find out what people were writing 3000-6000 years ago …
- smoke a bong full of grade ‘A’ goats breath lying in the ruins of a culture that passed on over 6000 years ago
- read Von Daniken, listen to and study the Sons of Arqua
- stop hanging with people who need you to tell them what to do, hang with people who can tell you something you don’t know
- stop being a sheep, start thinking critically
- enjoy every lay you ever get
- play nice
Having grown up in this country as a member of a religious minority, I believe in a secular society, but I’m not an atheist. I’m a practicing Hindu.
I’m a pro-life Democrat. I am pro-life but also believe in a complete separation of church and state. I gave $1,008 to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, while asking Rev. Barry Lynn (Executive Director) to keep the organization neutral on this divisive issue, rather than take a pro-choice stance.
I have no problem with atheism. Thomas Jefferson, the architect of American democracy, said, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others, but it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pockets nor breaks my legs.”
Under Jeffersonian democracy, monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, atheism and even victimless crimes are all tolerated. This conception of democracy appears to me to be closer to the Vedic conception of government, because under Vedic civilization there was tolerance of different philosophical schools of thought, different yoga systems, demigod worship, ancestor worship (”pitas” or forefathers, in Sanskrit), pantheism (advaita vedanta), and even atheists like Charvaka. The American Left is open to the idea of a tolerant multicultural, multireligious, multiracial and possibly even a multilingual society, whereas the right is not.
Jefferson stated that “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others.” Science fiction writer Robert Heinlein in “The Notebook of Lazarus Long”, also wrote that sin lies only in harming others–all other “sins” are concocted. In Vedic civilization, victimless crimes such as intoxication (rice wine was offered to goddess Kali) and even prostitution (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.11.17-19) were legal and regulated.
I agree that religion has no place in the secular arena and therefore oppose government instituted prayer in the public schools, but must simultaneously oppose the teaching of modern myths such as the theory of evolution in the public schools as well.
According to Vedic civilization, people fall into four different classes: educators, military, mercantile, and laborers. Only a certain class of people will have military inclinations, and a military draft forces people from the working classes to take up arms against their will. The American Left generally recognizes the immorality of a military draft.
Writer and activist Jean Blackwood, in the July 1993 issue of “Harmony: Voices for a Just Future”, a “consistent-ethic” publication on the religious Left, notes:
“Many of the young people who make up the animal rights and environmental movement grew up with pro-abortion rhetoric in their ears. They can make the mental shift from banning CFCs, outlawing whaling, and abolishing clearcuts to ‘a woman’s right to choose’ with such alacrity that one might suspect no self-contradiction was involved.”
For many young people today, abortion is just another choice; just another form of birth control. Will they be more inclined to listen to a secular moral philosophy that doesn’t dictate their sexual behavior or intrude upon their private life, or a set of unprovable religious beliefs that does?
There are non-traditional pro-life groups that make up “The Left Side of the March” on the March on Washington, every January 22nd, in D.C.: Vegans for Life, Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), etc. I’m not sure if Atheists for Life is included, but Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, vegan, and past president of Feminists For Life, once pointed out that there are pro-life atheists who argue that since there is no afterlife, life is especially precious.
(This argument is also used by Reverend Andrew Linzey in his 1987 book, “Christianity and the Rights of Animals” against Christians who claim animals don’t have souls: if there is no afterlife for animals, and animals will not be recompensated for their sufferings in an afterlife, then there is no justification for the sufferings we inflict upon them now.)
Had Dennis Kucinich remained pro-life, I would have voted for him. Atheists and agnostics have nothing to fear: we really live in a secular society; one in which people merely pay lip service to religious ideals.
The first commentator writes:
“‘Atheists are, in fact, the living embodiments of the temperaments that the religious claim to possess but fail to embody.’
What about Stalin? I’m not arguing that his atheism was the cause of atrocities he was involved in. But, he was atheist and he did to these things.
Simply not believing in a God does not automatically equate to some perfected living embodiment. Atheists, as well as non-atheists, have beliefs which are not related to their belief or dis-belief in God and influence their actions.”
In response to this, let us remember that [I typically do not edit my own comments, but, here, I feel compelled to point out that I am referring to Lenin, and not Stalin, whom I mistakenly referenced when responding to the comment that attributed atheism as the motivating factor for Stalin’s atrocities] Stalin’s Red Terror, which was, mind you, completely overblown by Western historians, was not the motivating factor for the war he waged against the White Czarist forces. He might have been an atheist, but he was not acting as an atheist as he battled to subdue to the reactionary forces that wanted to reinstall the Czar and all the Czars oppressive scare tactics intended to pacify the starving population.
Russell Cole
Gareth wrote a comment on June 22, 2007:
- “Atheists are, in fact, the living embodiments of the temperaments that the religious claim to possess but fail to embody.” (…)
Does anybody seriously believe that everyone will hold hands and sing happy songs and live happily ever after if everybody were an atheist? No more atrocities or wars or crime, everybody is happy?
Why on earth should I start treating my fellow human beings better if atheism is true? If atheism is true, then I don’t give a shit who I step over, use, abuse cos all that matters are these few short moments I have and I’m gonna get the most out of them, and who cares what happens to anyone else…” (…)
R Cole: In response, I am not saying that atheism is perfect. However, I am implying that those who hold humanity as the highest measure of all things will be more likely to esteem their fellow man in higher regard than under the definitions that pollute the various religious understandings of humanity with fictions, such as the mythological contrivance, ‘original sin.’
R Cole
Stalin did not kill in the name of “no God” he killed so he could have absolute power
Atheism has no doctrine in anything
Communism does
Oh and many seem to forget the dictatorship of the very Christian Czar.
religion is good because how else would you keep billions of weak minded people in line they are mostly good for one reason and that is their make believe god will send them to hell,if they had no religion what reason would weak minded people have to be good.
Care to comment?