Why Antitheism Is A Fully Reasonable Position.
[Please note that this blog format has comments enabled.
Feel free to speak your mind in the comments section, if you have something to say]
===========================
I recognize that there is more than one definition for "atheism".
The most common definition of "atheist" that theists use is: the claim that there definitely aren't any literal gods. -- Regardless of definitions, there are an awful lot of people wanting to demonize atheists. I happen to think that's a real problem; one that needs to be dealt with. Atheists don't "hate God". They don't worship the devil. They aren't "rebelling". Nor are they all a bunch of amoral nihilists. Some are. But most are just like anyone else. Nor does atheism have anything to do with communism. Nor does atheism advocate for Authoritarianism or Totalitarianism. Although, of course, traditional forms of Christianity and Islam do. Nor do atheists typically make any claim at all about non-literal definitions of "God". It doesn't apply to Spinoza's, or Einstein's, or Jung's, or even J. Peterson's "God" (at least not until Peterson finally cries himself into literal theism). Everyone understands that some people use the word to represent abstracts/concepts rather than literal, self-aware, autonomous super-people. I would argue that it's silly and counterproductive to use "God" as an abstraction. However, that's really as whole other matter. Atheism is only claiming that either: a.) literal super-people worthy of the title "God" don't exist. or b.) they aren't convinced that any exist. Meanwhile, I'd argue that saying "they don't exist" is a reasonable position. No adult I've ever met is agnostic about Santa Clause, or the Eternal King of the Leprechauns. If Santa or The Lepre-King reveal themselves to the world someday, a million children and a few comic-fans who live in their mother's basement might rise up and say "HAH! Told you they were real!". But that wouldn't undo the fact that everyone who previously took the "does not exist" position was being fully reasonable. In fact, it's more than reasonable to assume it. Because it's the healthiest available position. Life is hard enough, without:
a.) the weight of superstitious "what ifs", and b.) worrying that some random "messengers" in a vast sea of competing voices might be speaking by divine authority over what we should be doing with our lives. Plus, of course, literally ZERO humans have ever been qualified to convey a "perfect" message to others. We have never been qualified to represent a perfect Being. None of us are qualified as a vessel which delivers the power and truth of a Maximally Great Being to other humans. We're guaranteed to mess it up; thereby screwing-over all the people we tried to be "witnesses" and "shepherds" to. And then who's fault would THAT be? The "perfect" being who sanctioned it; -a rookie mistake which, ironically, would prove that the "messenger" is actually NOT representing a perfectly wise, nor perfectly loving, nor entirely powerful being. Meanwhile, there's something emotionally stunting about always thinking of one's self as a child under the ever-watchful gaze of a parent. This also applies to our moral development, because:
[Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching.] Personal-god theism robs us of that opportunity. Meanwhile, ... In a deistic universe, ... that "God" would be so irrelevant to our lives that both theism and antitheism become absolutely trivial. It can also be reasonably said that "Deism" is automatically unreasonable because it holds no ethical standard for what qualifies as a "God". Neither does personal-God-Theism; since literally all forms of theism must forsake coherent ethical standards, in order to assert that either: a.) "God is good, by definition". or that b.) A being which is not entirely "good" should still be called a "God". At the same time, personal-god-theism remains a serious folly; by misappropriating "God" as an insidious tool of control and exploitation. Either way, fundamentalist and moderate versions of the Abrahamic religions portray "God" as a seriously damaging example to children. His alleged biography checks all the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder and psychopathy. At the very same time, children are being taught that he represents the absolute perfect standard of "love" and the ideal relationship. Notice, there, as an example, where Jesus explains what HE believes is the IDEAL relationship between a human and his GOD. He likens it to the relationship between a faithful-yet-beaten slave and his master. And then he mentions how he can hardly wait to destroy everything and everyone in this world who isn't a faithful and doctrinally-discerned believer in his religious narrative. As Paula Goodwin put it, "If you teach a child that an abusive parent really does love them, then how are you going to teach a teenager that abuse is not love?". With that in mind, it's easy to see how such belief-systems are severely lowering the bar for which attitudes, relationships, and behaviors aught be considered "good". That's how such religions are functioning as: * factories which create abusers, and * sanctuaries which shelter abusers. They also function as platforms which: * justify and empower abusers as "righteous"; on the premise of "this is how God intends things to be". This also helps abusers obtain more victims; including the children they create and adopt, and the congregations they preside over. So then, let's thoughtfully consider what example we are setting for our children. If bullies at school scare a young child into thinking they better join their club, follow their rules, and eventually pay club dues, ... or else a spooky figure will take it personally and then eventually kill them (or worse), ... if that kid comes home worried and asks their parent if it's "True", ... should the parent remain "agnostic" about it, and say "I can't be sure"? I think we all recognize a good and responsible parent is going to take a hard "no" position on that; despite the fact they they can't prove it isn't true. So then this is the example we should be setting for children; to make sure they do not see us falling for something very similar; nor see us taking a hard "maybe". And all of this is in addition to the fact that: if any literal Super-Beings do exist (just for the sake argument), ... Any Super-Being WORTHY of worshipful regard, even as we fall to our knees, ... would reject the title and they'd reject all other expressions of worship. Why? Because it would be a mutually-unhealthy relationship paradigm; for the Super-Being and for the human. --- I'm not claiming that atheists or anti-theists have the moral high-ground *overall* in their life. There are great and crappy people, across the entire spectrum of theism vs non-theism. Every point along that spectrum has their share of monsters, too. I'm just saying: It's entirely reasonable, for someone who is only most of the way through the process of thinking-it-through, to take an "I doubt it" position about whether or not any literal "God(s)" exist. And for any sufficiently mature adult who actually has fully thought-it-through, the only fully reasonable conclusion would be a hard "no". ----
Comments
Post a Comment