Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

suspended in her jar

Home
Catholic
Variations on Atheism, and Atheists’ Views on Religion

Variations on Atheism, and Atheists’ Views on Religion

Last updated on: March 9, 2020 at 12:00 am by Guest Contributor

Variations on Atheism, and Atheists’ Views on Religion 2020-03-09T00:00:47-04:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

by guest writer William M. Shea, Ph.D.

“If You Understand It, It Isn’t God” [1]

Augustine, bishop of Hippo in North Africa (c.400 CE), wrote: “If you understand it, it isn’t God.”[2] What a statement from a man who many think is the greatest theologian in the history of Christianity. No wonder, then, that there are atheists. In general, atheists want to understand. Given that desire, it seems perfectly logical that atheists would take Augustine seriously and give up on knowing God and stick with what can be understood, that is, what falls within the horizon of possible human experience, for surely what is and can be understood is subject to human understanding. God isn’t. Why would any of us go on a quest to understand what even a leading believer reports as beyond “comprehension”? Why wouldn’t they look at believers as wasting time in their continuing quest to know God? And I mean believers as a whole, for all of them face pain, evil and death and do not understand but only accept in the “leap of faith” that for which there is no empirical evidence. In fact atheists dare believers to furnish evidence, any evidence, confident that their position is unassailable. And so it is if the inviolable limits they set to understanding are correct. Believers paradoxically seem to think that God is so evident that there is no need for the atheist’s preferred evidence and go right on blathering about nothing!

One strand of atheism has an attractive solution to this conundrum: believers do speak meaningfully and valuably but they make a category mistake in interpreting their religions’ claims. In effect, religious practitioners take beliefs as asserting facts about the cosmos and miss the point: religions express ideals, values, not reals. Religions are a product of imagination rather than understanding. Religions are based on projection, not on empirical evidence. There are many such atheists, among them my favorites: Ludwig Feuerbach, George Santayana, John Dewey, and the American Naturalists Frederick Woodbridge and John Randall. Even Karl Marx meant to affirm that religion served a purpose when he wrote in The Communist Manifesto that “religion is the opium of the people.” The people need that opium given the conditions under which they are forced to live by capitalists!

The British philosopher John Gray recently published a fine critique of the work of his fellow atheists in which he often leans in the direction of this first group. The title is Seven Types of Atheism. He sprinkles the term “mystery” in his concluding chapter and ends by saying that atheism and the religions have more in common than they think. I interpret him to mean that the terms “mystery” and “Mystery” overlap in their intention. That opens a door to “encounter,” does it not? What exactly do we mean when we use the terms mystery/Mystery?

Formal arguments for the existence of God (e.g., Aquinas’ famous five) are meant to help those who believe. Aquinas’ discussion in the Pars Prima owes much as we would expect, to Aristotle, but also too elucidations by Jewish and Islamic thinkers. The arguments fail those who don’t believe chiefly because of the cognitional suppositions underlying belief are not in place for them. Where there is an opening to transcendent knowledge arguments may help.

Of course, where there is belief there is doubt.

Doubt is part of the desire to understand. Questioning, the quest for meaning, is the promising spur to the reflections of philosophers and theologians, and the challenge to the faith and belief of the poor and the suffering. That quest is the root of all religions as it is of philosophy. Atheists as well as believers are trying to understand religions or their religion. Atheists reach the conclusion that there is nothing to understand. Some of them add another judgment that religion is an aberration of mind and spirit, even, as Dawkins famously said, an “abuse of children” as if my education in Catholic schools and at home was a poison poured into my mind and my parents were abusing me when they taught me to pray. From believer’s point of view, educating children in atheism, especially the New Atheism, is an abuse, a poisoning of the mind of children. The New Atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins et al.) have placed themselves beyond civil conversation by their attitude toward religions.

Other atheists go a good bit beyond The New Atheism and regard religion as a perfectly natural activity, perfectly human, understandable in anthropological and sociological terms (much like politics) but often misunderstood by practitioners who seemingly take religion to involve a description of the cosmos or, worse yet, an explanation of it. And so the arguments continuously play out not only about whether the “IT” is real, but also about what religion is as a practice, what are religious people doing and what they are talking about. There are three large issues at stake, then: (a) Is God?; (b) What is God?; (c) What good is religion?[3] The first two of these questions will be taken up in the next post.

___________________________

[1] I have been taken in by what our President calls “fake news” and “a hoax” and I must apologize to the readers of my last post, “Atheism and Theism.” It is not true that the Icelandic parliament named religion a mental disorder. Mea culpa! The essay was intended as satire and posted on patheos.com. The author is Andrew Hall.

[2] “Si enim comprehendis non est Deum.” Had I been a Bishop in the church I would have put this in my coat of arms. God is not a thing.

[3] Google “religion and sex.” According to recent sociological research couples who are religious practitioners are more satisfied in their marriages and have better sex lives than couples who are not. I once presented this inspiring thought to a class, one member of which raised his hand and said: “Where do I sign up?” Pay attention, you atheists!

Previous Post

March 6, 2020

In Case You Were Wondering, We Still Need Feminism

Next Post

March 10, 2020 COVID-19 and Religion: Rash Providentialism Is Going To Get People Killed

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abortion anti-semitism art Atwood Betrothed church clergy abuse coronavirus culture economics education environmentalism ethics faith family feminism gardening gun violence immigration Judaism literature MaddAddam New Pro Life Movement news pandemic personalism poem politics politics blue Pope Francis racism religion salvation sexuality social justice spirituality Station eleven Stephen King The Stand Trump Uncategorized war World Health Organization

Select a Month March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Matthew's Gospel begins with a genealogy tracing Jesus' lineage back to King David.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE

Support this
Column