First, a few notes:
- Monotheists don’t call the belief that they have correctly identified the one true god out of the thousands possible arrogance. They call it faith.
- Even those who like to point out, “well, you can’t prove there isn’t a god,” tend to not call those who have a lack of a belief in, say, unicorns arrogant. They call it realistic.
Atheism, however, seems to be oh-so-often equated with arrogance. With the release of a new book from each, Dawkins and Harris have been getting a lot of press as the new, in-your-face variety of “atheist evangelicals.” I’ve been recently making my way through Dawkins’ newest book. With the title The God Delusion, it’s clearly not intended for a theistic audience. However, I could imagine a wavering agnostic, or even a certain sort of “spiritual but not religious” appreciating and benefiting from reading it. Is it arrogant, though?
ar•ro•gance
Offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.
- Dictionary.com
The key word in the definition above is “offensive.” None of us have 20-20 vision when it comes to perceiving the world around us; we all wear glasses of some variety, tinted by a mesh of factors drawn from our genetics and experiences. The statements and positions I might characterize as offensive are entirely different from those another person might categorize as such.
Even with my atheist-tinted lenses, I suppose I still see phrases such as “an act of intellectual high treason” (Dawkins pg 19) as possible hyperbole, even if not precisely arrogant. Even when prefaced by “in my opinion” (as the above statement is in his book), phrases like this need to be read with a strong British accent to avoid sounding overdramatic.
According to Dawkins, “God, in the sense defined, is a delusion.” Dawkins also writes that he won’t go out of his “way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently than I would handle anything else.” (pg 27) I find this fair and think he is correct in insisting that religion not be treated as an unchallengeable subject (as it often is). However, when you compare god to garden fairies (as he does), you do run the risk of offending those who don’t believe their religion is the same as children’s fantasy.
Dawkins, to some, might be considered offensive. What about atheism itself—is the entire concept offensive? Well, that seems to depend entirely on the potential offend-ee. Atheism might offend people by indicating that they are, in fact, not correct. However, most religions (and all monotheistic ones) by default do the same. Atheism certainly isn’t the only spoil-sport of religious belief--- clashing religions manage to “offend” each other in this way quite well on their own.
So, what about the rest of the definition? Is atheism a position of superiority? Believing you hold a correct answer to a question is not in itself posturing superiority. If this is all it takes to be classified as arrogant, all true believers of whatever faith are certainly at least as arrogant as atheists. We claim that there is no proof. They claim that faith should be enough. (shrugs)
How about self-importance? Well, it seems to me that believing you are personally blessed by a doting god might reek of self-importance a bit more than the quiet satisfaction of knowing you are working yourself to shape a better existence for yourself and others.
Finally, does atheism involve undue pride? (shrugs) Though I was the one who asked it, the question itself baffles me. Pride in what in particular? It’s a lack of a belief. Pride in that?
Though it might be fashionable to say otherwise, I don’t know many people who really think all atheists are superior, self-important beings with a sense of overbearing pride. Most acknowledge that some are, while some aren’t... just like theistic folks. However, it’s still so terribly trendy (especially in the news) at the moment to latch onto particular atheists, declare them arrogant, and often extend the label to entire group in one dramatic sweep. Oh well. At least this gives me a good excuse to cut in front of my inferiors in grocery lines without guilt and prattle on about my many talents without shame. After all, I’m an atheist--- I must be arrogant.
Thoughts the “tenability” of atheism versus agnosticism to follow soon…
10 comments:
RE: belief
Belief Puzzle
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2007/01/belief-puzzle.html
Who cares if people think you're arrogant when you don't believe in their imaginary friend? Do we actual value the opinions of such nuts?
I think the pride part comes from being proud of yourself for not falling into the "trap" of believing.
I, however, feel no pride in being an atheist, and often, I wish I wasn't. It's not easy for me to think about the fact that I will eventually die, and that's it. And yet, I feel happier knowing that, than I would feel if I walked around deluding myself into thinking otherwise.
I think I will have to confess (again)to being arrogant. I'm not always thus. It depends on the situation.
"Respect for Religion" has had a free ride for too long. It's the breaking of this tabu that seems to elicit charges of arrogance.
Even those who like to point out, “well, you can’t prove there isn’t a god,” tend to not call those who have a lack of a belief in, say, unicorns arrogant. They call it realistic.
Most atheists don't say that "there isn't a god." Atheism is just an absense of theistic beleif. That way when they pull the "well, you can't prove there isn't a god," you can say, "I didn't say there isn't one." Then you point out that without proof, denial and affirmation of god is unjustified, leaving implicit atheism as the justified position. ^_^
For the next one, I recommend "Atheism: the Case Against God." It has a chapter on agnosticism.
Anonymous: Who cares if people think you're arrogant when you don't believe in their imaginary friend? Do we actual value the opinions of such nuts?
Eh, in many cases, yes. Even if I think that I’m right, I’d prefer to be right in a logical, friendly, often amusing way than a more arrogant, obnoxious way. But that’s just the role I’d rather cast for myself. I don’t think atheists have any more “obligation” to be non-arrogant than theists.
Watcher: I think the pride part comes from being proud of yourself for not falling into the "trap" of believing.
Yeah, I suppose so. Then again, I certainly attribute my not falling into belief as more a product of genetics and environment rather than sheer force of will (or anything else I could be legitimately “proud” of). Acknowledging that I’m an atheist is a choice. However, I’m not sure that being atheist is a choice, for me at least. I could pretend to be religious for the social benefits and the like, but I don’t think I could ever actually force myself to believe.
Remy: I think I will have to confess (again)to being arrogant. I'm not always thus. It depends on the situation.
Me too. Some situations certainly call for being more “forceful” than others.
"Respect for Religion" has had a free ride for too long. It's the breaking of this tabu that seems to elicit charges of arrogance
Yes. And it’s those charges of arrogance that I disagree with the most… challenging religious beliefs in the same way as one would legitimately challenge other beliefs shouldn’t be labeled as arrogance.
Meso: Most atheists don't say that "there isn't a god." Atheism is just an absense of theistic beleif.
(nods)
that way when they pull the "well, you can't prove there isn't a god," you can say, "I didn't say there isn't one." Then you point out that without proof, denial and affirmation of god is unjustified, leaving implicit atheism as the justified position. ^_^
How terribly sneaky (in a logical, non-negatively-sneaky type way).
For the next one, I recommend "Atheism: the Case Against God." It has a chapter on agnosticism.
I shall have to check it out.
How terribly sneaky (in a logical, non-negatively-sneaky type way).
Its their fault for making me argue with them so much. ;p
Meso: Its their fault for making me argue with them so much. ;p
They are inadvertently contributing to the development of your debate skills, eh?
Aviaa:
How terribly sneaky (in a logical, non-negatively-sneaky type way).
It's the Agrippa's Trilemma. Pathetic really.
It's like I told my brudder-in-law on Xmas eve (he tried to shift the burden of proof - how typical!): "No way am I going to disprove the existence of something you can't prove exists."
I'm w/Remy: these folks have had a free pass WAY too long.
KA,
I'm w/Remy: these folks have had a free pass WAY too long.
Sure. Religion doesn't deserve to be handled with kid gloves any more than any other topic.... that being said, I've had a lot more success with my in person conversations when I've avoided bringing up Dawkin's garden fairies. Somehow, they just don't go over so well.
Post a Comment