So, an acquaintance on Facebook
posted this meme the other day.
It’s not the first time I’ve seen
it, but for some reason this time it got me to thinking instead of just
dismissing it as I usually do. And as a result, you get another blog post.
Aren’t you happy?
The first sentence states “I’m not
offended that Atheists don’t believe in God.” That’s fine, as far as it goes.
I’ll happily grant that anyone who posts this meme means it in all sincerity. They’re
not offended that we don’t believe. But they need to understand that they do
not speak for every believer. Many theists are
offended that atheists don’t believe in their god, and are quite vocal in
expressing that fact; especially if we have the gall to say it out loud. Maybe
that’s not you, in which case I’m very glad. But to act as though the fact that
you, personally, aren’t offended by our lack of belief means that atheists never
encounter people who are is turning a blind eye to reality.
The second sentence… well, it’s kind
of a trick question. “Why are Atheists offended that I do believe in God?” The
question implies the accusation that atheists, as a group, are offended that
people believe in God, when for the most part we just aren’t. Sure, there
probably are some who are, but they’re hardly representative. I can get how
encountering people like that could color your impressions of atheists in
general, or how some of our positions could be mistaken for offense at your
belief in a god. But the mere holding of such a belief isn’t particularly
offensive to us.
Questions like the one posed in this
meme, though, aren’t really questions. They’re smokescreens. Aside from the
implied accusation, a question like this is aimed at deflecting attention away
from atheists’ actual objections to
religion by minimizing them and misrepresenting them as mere offense at the
fact that you believe.
There are, however, quite a number
of religiously supported positions we
find offensive. And since these positions may seem inextricably tied to your
belief in your god(s), it may be hard to see them as separate things.
For example, if a Muslim believes
women must be kept separate and in submission to the dominant male in their
lives, I find that offensive and will oppose it. Or if a Christian believes
that gay people should be punished and tormented for being gay, I find that
offensive and will oppose it. If a Hindu believes people born in a “lower
caste” deserve to be treated like dirt because of it, I find that offensive and
will oppose it. From my perspective, those positions are what I object to. Not
the belief in Allah or Jesus, or Krishna, or whoever. Anyone who believes in
those gods, and yet does not hold that their belief gives them license to
impose what I view as harmful ideologies on others, is not going to offend me
by their belief in their god.
If I can go Godwin here for a second…
it’s the difference between being offended that people believe Adolf Hitler
existed, versus being offended that some people actually think he had good
ideas about how to treat ethnic and religious minorities. The latter is
perfectly reasonable, and analogous to the kind of offense most atheists might
experience when encountering religious beliefs. Whereas the former is kind of
silly.
Of course, I also get that from a
believer’s perspective, they may believe that a god exists who holds the kinds
of positions described above and has the authority to require people to hold
them as well. Their belief in the positions that we find offensive is
predicated entirely on their belief in the god who demands them. That’s where
this gets thorny, because it’s hard to separate “I’m offended by the positions
required by the god you believe in,” from “I’m offended by your belief in that
god.” But they are separate things.
So why do many atheists make a point
of arguing against believing in gods in the first place, if that belief doesn’t
offend them?
Because beliefs have consequences.
People make decisions based on their beliefs. If someone believes they must do
something harmful or offensive because they believe in a god who wants it done
and has the authority to demand they do it, we don’t have many options for persuading
them not to. The only way to get at those kinds of decision processes is to
attack the god-belief, either by persuading them to start believing in a god
that doesn’t want those things (or doesn’t have the authority to demand them),
or by persuading them not to believe in the god at all. The first approach, for
us, would be a dishonest one at best, and still leaves open the possibility that
a theist would simply transfer belief to a god that demands a different set of
harmful behaviors. The second approach is the honest one and, to our minds at
least, the path that also opens the door to taking a more reasoned approach to
evaluating future actions.
Does this make sense? I hope it does.
I hope that you can see that what I’m talking about, while not necessarily
straightforward, is not merely a semantic difference. We’re not offended by the
belief in a god, but I think we still have good reason to argue against believing
in one anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment