Dogmatic Atheism
Sep 15th, 2008 | By Max Jackson | Category: FeatureI started my secularist career as a Hitchens exegete, picking up “god is not Great” on a whim and immediately becoming engrossed by every word. Inspired, I began picking fights with some relatively harmless Christians from my old high school. These are the kids who play the acoustic guitar and bongos at CRU(Campus Crusade’s hip new moniker), peaceful but irritating in their own way. The Facebook note wars were exhilarating for me, meeting kind but weak arguments with the most eloquent venom that I could muster.
This lasted all summer, and when college rolled around Campus Freethought Alliance gave me an excellent vent for my anti-religious ire. I loved nothing more than to chew up any and all of the well-meaning but ignorant Christians that were unfortunate enough to get in my line of sight. I glared at those I saw with crosses around their necks and Bible verses tattood on their arms. I judged a person’s merit as a person based solely on whether or not they subscribed to popular religious dogma.
Gradually, I began to realize that I was a complete and total hypocrite. I was blasting those who disagreed with me, eagerly and hurtfully, without even giving a thought to the idea that I might be wrong myself. I didn’t critically examine my beliefs at all, even while passionately calling for the religious to do the same. I immediately and spitefully rejected any views that did not confirm or support my own.
As I was gradually waking up to this fact, a few things happened to catalyze the process. My girlfriend Leah took me to her old home in Boston for a week, where I saw things that made my jaw drop. I saw the word “evolution” frankly utilized all over the place in the Boston Aquarium, without fear of public outcry. I saw a gay flag stamped on the sign of a Baptist church, an institution that I associate with the worst ignorance and bigotry here in the South. I got the idea that if I started going off about the importance of critically examining beliefs, people would react with puzzlement that I thought there was a special need to promote critical thinking at all.
I returned home a different man. I had tasted the North East, and to this day I am thirsty for more. Up there, religion stood amputated of its worst qualities, of what made me detest it in the South. The perspective forced me to re-evaluate my own beliefs, as I now saw them. No longer boldly and absolutely positive in my “belief in the absence of a god,” I had to refine my understanding of human knowledge and what exactly it was that I was fighting.
I understood then that religion was and is not the problem. Dogma is the problem, and dogmatic religion is a symptom of what I view as a critical fault in human psychology. Everyone has a bit of the dogmatic inside of them, but it wasn’t until I opened my perspective that I realized that Atheism is not necessarily Freethought. We Atheists like to think of scientific naturalism as the inevitable conclusion of free inquiry, but we often forget that our models of the universe are based on what limited information we each individually have experienced in our own lifetimes. I used to consider the religious to be far less intelligent than myself, for in my eyes they were clearly either too stupid or too deluded to see things my way*.
I watched a clip of Richard Dawkins on the “O’Reilly Factor.” during which Dawkins was grilled on the moral efficacy of Atheism. I didn’t like his response, as I felt it missed the point entirely; rather than attempting to immunize Atheism as a moral determinant, I felt that he should have pointed out what Hitchens almost got at in “god is not Great;” the issue is not religion, but dogma. Much of the worst atrocities of the last century were committed not under the banner of a religious ideology, but a political dogma instead.
I feel that this is something we must all remember, every day. Being an atheist does not automatically make one smarter or more rational than any believer. I am proud of my atheism not just because I feel that it is a more accurate perception of objective reality, but because my arrival here came as the result of relentless introspection and merciless inquiry. My faith, or lack there-of, has survived a trip into and out of dogmatism.**
Here are some questions:
Can we really maintain objectivity, especially in the face of the rather rabid attacks we may face in public debate?
Which should we promote more? Free inquiry or Secular Humanism?
Last 5 posts by Max Jackson
- Webster Cook Impeached Without Due Process - August 30th, 2008
- Political Untouchables - August 29th, 2008
Loading ...
Working backwards here…
1. Free inquiry or humanism - how do you promote humanism without underpinning inquiry? I don’t necesarily see these as two separate strands. Through my work, I’ve found it to be mutually supporting. Between us psychies, its an IV with two levels
2. Explain further your views on “objectivity” in public debates. Sorry to speak personally again, but through my public appearances, its mostly anger at atheist logic without much thought. On a radio interview, a caller phoned in accusing me of being hostile (agreed, I am), of saying I think religious people are stupid (have ever and will never say that) and other things. He shot himself in the foot without me doing anything. I’m not sure what you mean by remaining objective - do you mean, remain as unemotional and dogmatic as possible? If that’s what you are saying then I agree with you. Emotion has no part in the debate I think.
I think I might just write a response to this Mr Jackson. A thought-provoking piece.
[Reply]
I laugh to myself, about the contrast with the North East, as a fellow southerner.
I had one professor tell me that he thought Christianity was at its best when it has very little political power.
[Reply]
Max-
Thank you writing this article. I am glad that other atheists have started to recognize that religion is a symptom but not the disease, which of course is the drive for authoritarian control, and that atheism does not automatically equate to freethinker. It would of course be freaking cool if it did, but that’s an ideal and not reality in any way.
[Reply]
Good job, well reasoned and thoughtful.
Its easy to criticise others, but honest self-reflection is always the more difficult thing and usually the more rewarding.
[Reply]
What I think is unfortunately a problem among some circles is that we tend to group religions into generalities as if Christianity for example were some monolithic block where everyone is marching in lock-step and adhere to the exact same beliefs. Imo, that view is as fallacious as the stereotypical atheist who desperately wants to destroy religion, lacks any moral center, and is probably a Communist.
The world is meant to be viewed in shades of gray, not in oversimplified black or white. The more nuance the better.
[Reply]
Amen Robin
[Reply]
Religion as we know it could not exist without dogmatism. The patent intellectual vacuity of these belief systems should make it such that in a nondogmatic community, the beliefs could not have persisted. So rather than saying that dogmatism rather than religion is the problem, I’d say that religion itself absolutely depends on dogmatism. I would absolutely agree, though, that dogmatism is extremely dangerous. A secular evil, if you will. And I’ll also add that obviously religious dogmatism takes on different degrees of malleability and applicability. i was about to say that religious moderates show higher malleability and lower appicability than religious conservatives, with the meaning being that 1) moderates are able than conservatives to contort their beliefs more flexibly in response to society (e.g., science, secular ethics, etc)., and 2) moderates apply their religious views less diffusely (e.g., not applying them to others as much). But I should probably temper such statements with a mention of other social-cognitive factors. For instance, the difference in views between religious moderates and conservatives is probably due in good part to broader cognitive predilections concerned with issues such as tolerance for uncertainty, need for a sense of order, obedience to authority, openness to novelty, etc. Religious views surely socially evolve with respect to these sorts of considerations within individuals and communities.
I agree that atheism is not necessarily freethought. There are surely atheists out there who have come to and maintain their atheism through means other than rigorous and honest thinking.
[Reply]