Atheistic Whiners
Charlotte Allen author of the Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus, does her best in her several writings to cast atheists as boring or resentful proselytizers for godlessness with hidden agendas, thin skin, & tin hats, armed with arguments that are so weak that their numbers remain at a mere 1.6% of the population.
Proselytizing for an unprovable proof is best left to fools, but I concede that atheists and believers alike do it. And if Charlotte has found some atheist proselytizers to pick on, she should also recognize that far larger numbers (as in 98.4% of the population) are more invested in crusading, converting, and convincing others via personal and institutional means than the handful of atheists who do the same. Most atheists are quiet about it. So it’s ironic that she casts atheists as active crusaders and proselytizers of a lost cause. That’s because for most atheists, there is no cause.
Atheists like me come to their godless conclusions quietly and live our lives among believers despite our differing views, but Charlotte raises several straw man arguments implying that most atheists want to foist their boring views on others. For example, she cites atheist who trot out Darwin and his theory of natural selection. But for me, natural selection does not necessarily “disprove” god’s creation (though it does mess up the time frame, and raises questions about Noah’s actual cargo). As a folklorist I’m trained to look for truth as a basis for a story (as when Schliemann dug up the ancient city of Troy based on a story told by Homer), but not to believe in every word (word-for-word) of the story.
But many in the Bible belt do argue against natural selection because they perceive exactly that threat to the word-for-word biblical version of creation, and because of that they do their best to shout down one of the most widely accepted (by science) and predictive theories humans hold to be true. They needn’t be so strident.
And as for those few atheists Charlotte claims decry discrimination against them by the state, I would agree such atheist complaints are overblown. It has rarely been the case that modern atheists are discriminated against upon in any material way (discounting the Inquisition or the Crusades). Please, discrimination these days is more about having a view that most others in the community eschew and find your views threatening to their world view. In their eyes you are a “non-believer;” or, to use an Arab epithet, you are in “infidel.” Notwithstanding that these phrases are pregnant (to the believer) with negative connotation, and that in parts of the Arab world, at least, reason enough to be stoned (or poisoned for listening to the wrong gods in Classical Greece) as with Socrates. But in the end, they are, after all, just words. Big deal.
And while some atheists, as Charlotte points out, may indeed deny the historicity of the person named Joshua (now pronounced “Jesus” or the “anointed one,”i.e. “Christ”) many of us concur that there is a high likelihood that this remarkable man existed in time, even though no-one bothered to write about him until 50 years after his death, so like any “historian,” the accuracy of all parts of the story may legitimately be questioned, even when there is a strong argument for his existence. As for the historian/folklorist writing this instant epistle, the evidence for an historical Joshua/Хπιστός is ample enough for me. However, there is a difference between accepting an historical Christos, and accepting that person as part of a holy trinity.
Charlotte’s attempt to make atheists look like one block of people who think the same way is a red herring. Atheists tend to be free thinkers, and don’t make their arguments in lock step. In fact, many prefer to eschew argument and just be quiet about it. Rather, like Job, they ask, at a personal level, based on all we individually experience in real life and real death, and with every ounce of our free will, what is there other than 2,000 years of aggressive proselytizing, indoctrinating, institutional repetition of the Passion of Christ for the singular purpose of having 98.4% of the multitudes “believe” in something none of them have never seen or heard.
The effort is relentless. We see and hear the underlying belief every day from neighbors, newspapers, and magazines. It lurks in implicit assumptions that inform much of how we see the world. In a phrase: it’s Biblical, not Homerful, and not LA Timesful. We see it on coins, and in the national pledge of allegiance. It’s the very basis of our most common curses as in: OMG, JEES..F’ing, C, GDMIT, or G T Hell. I mean other than FU, or MF, are there many curses that don’t have a religious derivation?
What else but a massive campaign including the shunning and shaming those with competing views could make real the existence of an odd triad from a dusty place that Alexander the Great ran over on his way to Egypt without so much as a footnote, consisting of an omnipotent father, son, and holy ghost they we have never seen exist. If 98.4% of our fellow men and women do believe in such an invisible thing, I suppose a marketing award (maybe Saul/Paul could accept it) is in order: this is an incredibly successful campaign for the thoughts and hearts of us all. But the bottom line is, at least for this atheist, that the triad could indeed exist, and I have no way to rule it out. In other words, I can’t say that you are wrong. After all, in parallel universe theory, I am typing this meme in reverse, in Greek, and married to Madonna. It’s possible, but the issue is that I can’t bring myself to believe it: ironic that it comes back to that. But that’s where I stand.
That said, I do have a bone to pick with my brethren of faith. They keep asking me to believe what I might call the Great Charade. It greatly annoys me, so your forbearance over the next few paragraphs would be appreciated.
To explain, what I call the Great Charade is that I am offered this deal for heaven if I would just believe instead of use my brain. The players in this game are our omnipotent god and me. This is hardly a match. God created the universe, and supplied me with both free will and intellect. This same god, who holds all the cards, then asks me via intermediaries to ignore that very same free will and intellect in favor of “faith.” I’m offered this tantalizing E-ticket for entry to heaven if I will just suspend my disbelief that the god, ghost, son trilogy is a truth, despite every concrete experience piled up in my brain that says otherwise.
Excuse me God, you are all-powerful. All I have is what you gave me (as in my intellect). You have the power to just open up your robes and show your toes. That’s all it would take. What’s the point of playing this great big game (charade) where you hold all your cards back and ask us to play the fool. Please: don’t ask me to ignore my god given intellect. Has anyone considered that this surrender of intellect could just be a surrender to one of those false gods we keep hearing about? Who would know if we are not using our brains in the first place.
Knock me off my feet on the road to Damascus, boom out my new name thrice as I lay in the sand wondering what hit me, and then I may believe as you do. Until then, the guy-in-the-sky story is entertaining, grist for a movie or even a best-seller, but it’s just not very persuasive, especially when it’s most crucial parts depend on me playing a hide and seek game with an all powerful being who could just step out from behind the curtain and convert me to a believer in a heartbeat. That’s all it would take.
No, my little missive here is not a proof of god’s non-existence, or even an argument for you to doubt your faith: it’s just a curious and critical view based on experience and god-given (to use a phrase) intellect. But if you must file this missive in the “one more boring whining atheist proselytizer for a cause file:” please, there is no cause; just some questions on this road to Damascus.
Filed under: Bible, christian, evangelical, history, religion | Leave a Comment
No Responses Yet to “Atheistic Whiners”