Is atheism the enemy of faith?
Introduction:
Throughout the season of Epiphany, we’ve learned about our United Church’s understanding of and relations with other religions: Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam. Thank you so much for receiving my reflections and studies very positively so far. I hope that this study of Atheism inspires the same openness and genuine curiosity. Hate or fear often come when we think we know something, but we only actually know the most obvious, inflammatory things about it. I hope that we can approach this study in the same way we would learn about other religions and their faith, practices and traditions. You know how deeply I appreciate the fact that the United Church has produced wonderful study guides such as Bearing Faithful Witness, Honouring the Divine in Each Other, That We May Know Each Other. Each one represents years of work for the many people involved, and we do not have one to study atheism (and I don’t think we will see it soon, especially as it seems that to identify as ‘atheist’ has become anathema to the United Church.). So, I have picked up a couple of books that I have been keeping on my bookshelf for the last five years: Atheism for Dummies (like Football for Dummies, Wine for Dummies, MBA for Dummies (I have the MBA one, too, very useful!) and Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion.
Sermon: Is atheism the enemy of faith?
Text: Luke 5:1-11
Is atheism the enemy of faith?
This question was asked in a sermon by a feminist United Church clergy in Toronto. I borrowed it from her. And, actually she said atheism is the enemy of faith.
When I asked that question on Facebook last week, two of my friends shared their responses. My friend P is an ex-Roman Catholic priest. He lived and worked in Peru for seven years when he was in ministry as a missionary. Now, I have deep respect for his commitment to justice. For example, he regularly visits Honduras and helps the work of his friend, a priest who dedicatedly, risking faith, works for the exploited, suffering ordinary people in Honduras. In his response, he asks,
Another friend of mine, B, newly-retired United Church clergy, left his comment as:
My friend B’s point of view may be more widely shared in United Church circles.
Setting aside misconceptions, Things that few (if any) atheists believe:
That that there is no right and wrong (Be careful not to confuse atheism with moral nihilism.) That life arose and evolved by chance. That all religion is the same. That religion has made no positive contributions.
What does most atheists actually do believe?
(All are quotes.)
- Seeing the natural universe as all there is — and that is enough.
- Accepting that this is our one and only life (That life ends, and ends for good, should give what time you do have an extraordinary preciousness. Knowing that this moment is part of a limited life, one with no do-overs, can lend a whole new depth, intensity, and meaning to that moment.)
- Valuing ethical behaviour (An ethical society is simply safer, less scary, easier, more satisfying to live in, and simply better, whether or not a person believes in God.)
- Taking responsibility for ourselves and each other (After a person sets religious belief aside (“putting it in God’s hands”), a huge feeling of responsibility often sets in. Life has no divine safety net and no escape clause into the next life. If humans want a better world, they have no one but themselves to turn to. This idea strikes many atheists with the overwhelming desire to do it right - to work for human rights, justice, peace, and equality in this, our one and only life.)
- Critiques of religion, in fact, all religions (If a religious belief inspires bigotry and hatred and violence, it would be immoral to look the other way just because that belief is religious. i.e. the use of biblical arguments to extend slavery in the 19th century and delay women’s rights in the 20th. The ongoing opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians, extremely framed in religious terms.)
- Last but not least, getting humble about humanness. (One of the defining Christian ideas is that humans are special, created separate from animals and endowed with immortal souls.)
- Another last but not least, Humanism. So, what’s the best way to respond to a world in which there is no God? The answer for many atheists is humanism, the thousand steps that follow the conclusion that God doesn’t exist. Humanism is a worldview that focuses care, compassion and a sense of wonder on this world and this life instead of focusing on a God and an imagined afterlife.
The history of atheism is as long as the history of religions; limiting myself to 1500 words is a challenge. To be succinct, let’s invest some of our time in understanding New Atheism and a New Humanism of the 21st century. The beginning of the 21st century saw the birth of a more confrontational brand of atheism, one that challenges the ill-effects of religion without apology. On September 15, 2001, less than 96 hours after the attacks of September 11, a compelling essay by Richard Dawkins appeared in the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom. Commentators and politicians at the time were doing what they’ve done for centuries — saying that a religiously inspired tragedy, in this case, the 9/11 attacks, wasn’t really about religion at all. It was about politics, or culture clash, or something else… anything but religion.
“They hate us for our freedom.” President Bush said (speaking of the need for a “crusade”, alluding to Matthew 12:30 — “He who is not with me is against me.” —), not worrying whether that actually made any sense. Countless religious progressives claimed the attacks had been inspired by religious extremism, attempting to place a firewall between that extremism and religion in general. The purpose of Dawkins’ remarkable essay was to make the case that religion was the “elephant in the room”. Quote:
Then Dawkin’s imaginary terrorist event planner hits on an idea:
"What if some young men could be convinced that death isn’t the end after all?” (to keep the planes on course until they hit the buildings.)
Dawkins assured his readers that he wasn’t making light of the tragedy. On the contrary, he said he was motivated by a “deep grief and fierce anger” and this grief and anger heralded a whole new approach to religion for him. (So far, all quotes are from Dummies.)
I have a lot to say about all of this, but in the interest of keeping it short, I highly recommend that any interested faithful person like me should read chapter 4, Why There Almost Certainly Is No God, in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. The argument in the whole chapter is just stunning, expanding our (or my) understanding. Does it stop me from being faithful? No. It does the opposite. It only makes me even more profoundly faithful to the earth, the body of God, with the appreciation of its fierceness, elegance and the power with which the “millionfold and still ongoing” evolution of life has brought all of us to be here.
In this chapter, Why There Almost Certainly Is No God, Dawkins picks a page from the creationist book, Life - How Did It Get Here?, with no named author but published by the Watchtower Bible Society in sixteen languages and eleven million copies. Dawkins says,
Picking a page at random from this anonymous, lavishly distributed book, we find the sponge known as Venus’ Flower Basket (Euplectella)
, accompanied by a quotation from Sir David Attenborough, no less: ‘When you look at a complex sponge skeleton such as that made of silica spicules which is known as Venus’ Flower Basket, the imagination is baffled.
How could quasi-independent microscopic cells collaborate to secrete a million glassy splinters and construct such an intricate and beautiful lattice? We do not know.’ The Watchtower authors loses no time in adding their own punchline: ‘But one thing we do know: Chance is not the likely designer.’
Dawkins continues:
No indeed, chance is not the likely designer. That is one thing on which we can all agree. The statistical improbability of phenomena such as the Venus’ Flower Basket skeleton is the central problem that any theory of life must solve. The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means. But the candidate solutions to the riddle of improbability are not, as is falsely implied, design and chance. They are design and natural selection.
The quote ends. Turning Watchtower’s pages, we find Dutchman’s Pipe (the picture),
‘Did all of this happen by chance? Or did it happen by intelligent design?’
‘There are about seventy separate chemical reactions involved in photosynthesis. Biologists say, “It is truly a miraculous event.” Green plants have been called nature’s ‘factories’ - beautiful, quiet, nonpolluting, producing oxygen, recycling water, and feeding the world. Did they just happen by chance?’
Dawkins continues: Quote:
Creationist ‘logic’ is always the same. Some natural phenomenon is too statistically improbable, too complex, too beautiful, too awe-inspiring to have come into existence by chance. Design is the only alternative to chance that the authors can imagine. Therefore, a designer must have done it.
Dawkins continues:
[However,] Indeed, design is not a real alternative because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer?
Dawkins continues,
Natural selection is a real solution. … And it is not only a workable solution, it is a solution of stunning elegance and power. What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at the starting gate? The answer is that natural selection (notes: evolution of life) is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so.
It is the power of accumulation.
It is like “graded ramps” of slowly increasing complexity.
Evolution goes around the back of the mountain and creeps up the “gentle slope” to the summit.
Okay, quote over – my turn to speak. 😀
The power of accumulation of the millionfold and still ongoing process of adaptation of life moves forward the endless diversity and complexity of life and the earth system.
What lies at the heart of atheism and humanism is the understanding and the ethics of the diversity of human life and, indeed, the life of all creation and all relations;
putting humans in the circle of nature.
It challenges the faithful to hear the important critiques of religion.
The answer to the question, “Is atheism an enemy of faith or seed of faith to germinate a new spirituality?”, is yours, depending on our confidence in our own faith. Some atheists may never be friendly. I can say that. (And those who identify themselves as atheists and humanists may not be perfect as we, Christians, and the faithful, have never been either.)
However, atheists and the faithful are never automatically foes.
However, atheists and the faithful are never automatically foes.
---- Post-sermon Reflection ----
I wonder if we (i.e. Christians) can change the question we ask to ourselves, from “Do you believe in God?” to “How are you faithful?” Especially in this 21st century, asking “How are you faithful in your relation to the earth, the body of God?” would be critical.
To do this, we would need to redefine faith and what it means to be faithful. If 'being faithful' means sincerity in heart, integrity in ethical life (equity, justice and peace), human humbleness and vulnerability in relations with neighbors and all creation, this standard of life can be applied to both atheists and people of faith. If so, atheists and the faithful are not automatically foes. We have so much work to do for the safer, equitable society and the sustainable earth. In addition, As our church member said to me after my sermon, we would be “Really only enemies when we aren’t appreciative of diverse ways of understanding the world.”
To do this, we would need to redefine faith and what it means to be faithful. If 'being faithful' means sincerity in heart, integrity in ethical life (equity, justice and peace), human humbleness and vulnerability in relations with neighbors and all creation, this standard of life can be applied to both atheists and people of faith. If so, atheists and the faithful are not automatically foes. We have so much work to do for the safer, equitable society and the sustainable earth. In addition, As our church member said to me after my sermon, we would be “Really only enemies when we aren’t appreciative of diverse ways of understanding the world.”
%5EJ%202023.jpg)
