You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them

(From Deuteronomy 5, NIV)

Start with a clean slate. Postulate a vague entity/idea/principle worthy of the name “God”. Do not personify the entity. (Personification is already “extra information”, we’re trying to work with the bare minimum here.) Also, rather stay away from the “God of the Philosophers”, the prime-mover original-cause idea, because a prime mover is not necessarily the meaning assigner and invokes infinite regression. (The third meh/lah post is on its way, dealing with this.) Rather define the bare-bones idea we’re working with in terms of “that idea or principle according to which humans should ideally live their lives”, in the God as “Meaning Assigner” sense.

If you conclude the idea is enigmatic, yes, that’s the whole point. Let it be an enigmatic idea that represents our enigmatic and hard to pin-down idea of what it means to live a good life. One reader concluded his concept of his God, working with these definitions, must be found in his sense of empathy and compassion. Right… With these ideas, let’s look at atheists and the Commandments…

A certain kind of “atheist” believes the idea of “God” presented by the Bible is a human creation, a development of human culture. As such, they effectively believe this idea is a “graven image”. Fundamentalists that believe in literal Biblical infallibility, for example, are actually idolising the Bible. A Greek Orthodox friend of mine recently told me that in their tradition, the Bible is not the Truth, the Bible is about the Truth, a very important distinction.

If you hold the “atheist”’s belief about the Bible and the idea of God presented by it, then arguably the best way to most faithfully hold the first few commandments is to reject the worship of that particular notion of God, it being idolatry. The atheist’s statement “there is no God” is, after all, working with the typical monotheistic definition of “God”. An atheist is so faithfully avoiding the worship of what he or she believes are false gods, that he or she is prepared to walk a path of social/cultural persecution for it. For their faithfulness, they are persecuted.

After all, the early Christians were atheists as well.

··· Pause for dramatic effect ···

See Philip Harland’s post: Breaking news: Early Christians were impious atheists . . . (NT 3.2) … “in the eyes of some angry Greeks and Romans, that is.” And that’s then the point: they were atheists according to the status quo, the surrounding Greek and Roman culture. Our contemporary atheists are the same, defined according to the surrounding Christian culture. What is an atheist anyway? Some argue the word shouldn’t even exist, being defined according to what they are not.

Cut each other some slack and see what we can learn from one another!

I myself am a philosopher, and one of our occupational hazards is that people ask us what the meaning of life is. You have to have a bumper sticker, you have to have a statement, so this is mine:

The secret of happiness:
Find something more important than you are and dedicate your life to it.

He points out that this is The subordination of genetic interests to other interests. No other species does anything like this. Fine, yes, that we know of… but Dennett said that!

What Dennett’s bumper sticker wisdom is advocating here, as the secret to happiness, in “New Testament Terms”: find yourself a god.

In interaction between theist and atheist, this use of theistic language is a great source of strife. Theists sometimes points out that atheists also have a god, and the atheists argue. The reason? Atheists go by the definition of “god” that is “a metaphysical personal sky-daddy that performs miracles”, while the “theological-psychology theory” of god-worship is not that. For a scriptural example, the New Testament talks about the worship of mammon. Says Wikipedia:

Webster defines ‘mammon’ as: 1) the false god of riches and avarice. 2) riches regarded as an object of worship and greedy pursuit; wealth as an evil, more or less personified.[1] Winston defines it to mean: 1) wealth, worldly gain; 2) greed for riches; cupidity.[2] Oxford defines: god of wealth, regarded as evil or immoral; ‘those who worship mammon’ = greedy people who value money too highly.[3]

Mammon is considered a “false god” by Christians, by which they mean mammon is not worth worshipping, that materialism is a degenerate way to live. A non-Christian money-loving capitalist might disagree, believing mammon is worth worshipping. Irrespective of whether mammon is worth worshipping or not, mammon is a “god” in the sense of “meaning/purpose assigner“. This is the concept of “a god” that I’m running with.

Consider another of these greater ideals: humanism. The humanist — committed to the “more important” idea of humanism — would, in “ancient-lingo”, be worshipping a god of reason and empathy/compassion towards his fellow humans (love your neighbour), irrespective of his metaphysical convictions.

With regards to Matthew 22:36-39 then:

36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Compare that to a humanist that is committed to humanism, an idea more important than himself, with all his heart and all his soul and all his mind, with an integral part of that idea being to love his neighbour as himself. So yes, a humanist has a “god”, when cast into the terminology of that “theological-psychology theory”.

More: the “god” that Pullman (a secular humanist) advocates, is apparently a god of “inquiry, curiosity, maturity, compassion, determination, loyalty, opposing tyranny and evil”. (Hat tip to Timothy Mills for that list — I wrote about it in my post about the Golden Compass.)

Most humans have a “god”: most humans seek a purpose, seek meaning in life, except maybe committed nihilists. And atheists? Well, there are different kinds. You do get nihilistic atheists, but they are really not very common. (I wonder how many nihilists reached nihilism by “deconverting” from a supernaturalist worldview, in comparison to how many naturalists end up at nihilism? The ratio would determine whether supernaturalism might not have to bear much of the blame.) Most atheists are not nihilists. They do have a “god”, that “god” is just not personified and named, and is not an interventionist god.

Comments, thoughts, objections?

But I digress. Psalm 14:1 says:

The fool* says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

I’ve seen this quoted at non-theists. The theist doing the quoting typically interprets this to mean “those that say there is no God, are fools”. I’m not convinced. In particular, this talks about what the heart says, not what the lips say. Note in particular the footnote on “fool”:

The Hebrew words rendered fool in Psalms denote one who is morally deficient.

Now there is a huge difference between

1. The person that says there is no God…
   …is a morally deficient person, and
2. The person who is morally deficient…
   …has a heart that says there is no God

Understand how different these two interpretations are. Also, be sure to understand exactly and completely how one can arrive at each of these two interpretations. Also remember this is poetry.

Now this is written from a theistic worldview, in a theistic culture, with a theistic audience in mind, where “God” denotes “higher purpose”, encompasses the ideals we strive towards. (See What is God?: The Personal God for some background on this understanding of theistic language.)

Here is my translation of the first verse into non-theistic language (please excuse the bits that I lose in translation), using the second interpretation:

A morally deficient person has a heart that believes there is no reason to be good, that they can do whatever they want. They have no moral compass guiding them. With no higher purpose than their own gain, they are corrupt, their deeds are vile. They do no good.

Verse two says: “The LORD looks down from heaven / on the sons of men / to see if there are any who understand, / any who seek God.” Heaven does not exist in the material universe. Heaven is a description of an ultimate ideal, a description and an idea, i.e. something in our Meh. The ultimate love and compassion is found in this ideal. A personification of this ultimate love and compassion witnesses what we are doing in our materialistic reality, to see if there’s anyone that understands, anyone striving towards such compassion, anyone reaching out to heaven. (Talking Meh here…)

A humanist may not have a belief in the particular idea of “God” that most Christians promote, but they definitely have a belief in a greater ideal. They believe that what they do does matter. They have compassion and the golden rule as their moral compass. Their deeds are not corrupt or vile, they do good. This poem cannot be talking about them, can it? Described in theistic language, the humanist has a heart that knows God, a heart that knows good, a heart that knows compassion and cares about the oppression of the poor (verse six). Effectively, they worship a God of compassion and love, even if they don’t care much about supernatural intervention.

Now consider a particular theist that verbally announces “there is a God”, but that is in fact corrupt. Consider someone calling themselves a “Christian”, but who does no good, a theist that focuses on personal gain. I propose that this psalm speaks about such people. This psalm says that while the morally deficient theist may confess “there is a God” with his lips, his heart is saying “there is no God”, as seen through his actions.

Don’t you think that challenges your perspectives on this verse a little? Do you think this makes sense? For interest’s sake, also take a look at The Message’s paraphrase of Psalm 14.

This post is a filler, so that this blog does not sit idle until I can publish my feedback on the creationism seminar. There will be more thorough feedback than I originally planned, because I’m not alone in tackling this highly biased, unscholarly, unobjective misrepresentation of science (i.e. using straw man arguments), coupled with dishonest quote mining, and topped off with a potent dose of argument from incredulity.

Skeptico has a post titled Sniveling Cowardly Christians. And yes, the title is justified:

Early this month, MySpace again deleted the Atheist and Agnostic Group (35,000 members). This deletion, due largely to complaints from people who find atheism offensive, marks the second time MySpace has cancelled the group since November 2007.
[…]
“MySpace refuses to undelete the group, although it never violated any terms of service,” said Bryan Pesta, Ph.D., the group’s moderator. “When the largest Christian group was hacked, MySpace’s Founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”

This originally comes from MySpace: No place for Atheists?, read that or Skeptico’s post for more details. In particular, Skeptico asks:

Where are the “moderate Christians” protesting the atheists’ group’s right to exist? This act shows the religious mindset as it really is – intolerant, authoritarian, cowardly and vindictive.

While I don’t know how tolerant or intolerant the group was, the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University endorsed the group which is a good sign:

The group had its own Wikipedia entry, and in April won the Excellence in Humanist Communication Award (2007) from the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University and the Secular Student Alliance.

And here’s the thing, even if they were intolerant (which they probably were not), I still believe moderate Christians in favour of Freedom of Religion should be prepared to protest the atheists’ group’s right to exist.

So here’s the question: can we get some protest-action going somehow? Can we campaign to get the group undeleted? I don’t know that much about protesting, how would we go about it? I’m not following enough “moderate Christian” blogs, or possibly “emerging church” blogs, to know who to get involved. Maybe, just maybe, Real Live Preacher would be interested in picking this up and writing something beautiful and/or creative and/or just practical about it? I don’t know if he’d want to get involved in Internet politics. Possibly not. Either way, I love his tolerance-promoting post titled A New Abraham and a New Earth. Viva!

The empiricists are the people that are happy with this reality. They are the people that take the Blue pill. Ignorance is bliss. Are they ignorant? Or are they rather the enlightened ones? The empiricists intuitively sense the futility, as measured in reality, um, “this reality”, of taking the Red pill. The empiricists are those that have accepted this reality, and obeyed God’s command to not take a bite from the apple. Neo comes to the same realisation in the third Matrix movie.

However, as we should all know, from either our “secular” knowledge, or our “Christian” heritage, or I hope from some other element of other faith-languages, the very act of making the rule “thou shalt not take the red pill” encourages an act of defiance. “Thou shalt not take a bite from that red apple.” That legalistic “covenant” does therefore not work. Human inquisitiveness and self-awareness have reached the point where we always ask the question. We always ponder the apple. We are ever curious about the Red pill. Even if it is “worthless” in this reality that has been given to us. In this particular Matrix. For this very reason, there will always be people looking for “truth” that transcends this reality. They will be exploring, philosophically, the realms that experimental science has not yet been able to crack, though the progress that has been made is remarkable. Fret not, dear murkies, it will never be completely bright. You do not have to fight the Brights.

So what do you do with the “mystics”, those that look beyond empiricism? Let them play! No harm in that. No harm, until they start killing you or hurting your children. This is where the role of the “mystic guru” enters the picture. The good mystics know how to keep the seekers happy, and productive, in this reality. Or at the very least, how to keep them occupied, that we do not end up hurting one another. The bad mystics encourage people to fly planes into buildings, or use the “power” they have found, consciously or unconsciously, to start wars. They use mystical power to start wars about things in this reality. Say, um, oil? That brings the mystical war into this reality, where the empiricists care about it.

There are ancient mystics, but there are contemporary mystics as well. The Wachowski Brothers are mystics that are doing very good work through their medium. They have succeeded in translating much of the essence of the Christian tradition into contemporary language. They are writing scripture.

Here would be one piece of the puzzle in my dream for world peace, from the sides of those that call themselves “atheists”: I wish they would rather identify their God, and cite that, rather than “there is no God”. The statement “there is no God” is the polar opposite of fundamentalism. These two sides polarise one another. How will the disarmament happen? In a sudden annihilation? In a gradual disarmament? Who will make the first move?

A Gallup poll taken in 1999 asked Americans whether they would vote for an otherwise well-qualified person who was a woman (95 per cent would), a Roman Catholic (94 per cent would), Jew (92 per cent), black (92 per cent), Mormon (79 per cent), homosexual (79 per cent), or atheist (49 per cent).

Now here’s the thing, irrespective of whether I’m a theist or an atheist, I would have serious reservations about voting for someone that does not understand the language that the majority of his countrymen speak. I don’t care about his personal views. If he doesn’t understand his countrymen and cannot communicate well, how could I vote for him in good faith?

Until now, I suspect that publicly donning the “atheist” label served as a decent indicator to identify people that lack an understanding of theistic language. From an old post of mine:

South Africa long had the policy of not accepting blood donations from non-whites, purely because statistically, “white blood” was more likely to be AIDS-free. How is that for a can of worms? Statistics, dangerous stuff. Naturally, this policy was forced to change. I don’t know what statistics they now use to determine what blood is “safer” and what is “less safe”.

People do not distrust the label “atheist”, they distrust the things that “atheist” is currently an indicator for. The Out Campaign is then merely trying to dilute the word to the point where it no longer serves as that indicator. Why do you care so much about the label? I also believe comparing it to the Gay Pride movement is a logical fallacy. That movement was about fighting the marginalisation of people with a particular physiology. (Physiology? There must be a better word?) The Out Campaign is, in my opinion, merely destigmatising a label, nothing more. Yay. A label that many say shouldn’t even exist. (I suspect one might even be able to find a Richard Dawkins quote that includes him in that “many”.) OK, yes, I understand. You would like to be “united”. You want your voice heard. I have another idea to complement the “Out Campaign”. It’s on its way.

Now on to a statement Richard Dawkins made at AAI. He mentioned he would have been a bad choice of witness at the Dover trial. He said if confronted with the question “does evolution lead to atheism?”, he would have to answer “yes”. I’m convinced he thereby illustrates his lack of understanding of theistic language. What is the question really? The question is this: “Does evolution lead to an absolutely meaningless existence? Does evolution lead to a lack of hope? Does evolution lead to nothing to base your morality on?” This is what Richard Dawkins would have answered “yes” to. You must understand that people cannot trust politicians that go around saying “Your existence is meaningless! There is no point in behaving morally! Life is hopeless! Hopeless, I tell you!”

When communicating, what the recipient hears is much more important than what the speaker is trying to say. What would be the more valuable way of answering that question? Sidestep the word, if you are unable to communicate in theistic language. Use better words. “Well, evolution does not lead to a lack of hope, morality or meaning in life. If that is what you mean by ‘God’, then clearly evolution cannot lead to a rejection of God…”

Yes, one potential snag: “Please answer the question Mr Dawkins: Yes or No?”. Now the problem with the legal system and society as a whole: it assumes we are all talking the same language. And so we build a Tower of Babel, and we kill each other because we do not even realise we’re not speaking the same language. How about this: “I’m sorry, I do not understand what you mean by the question, as there are so many different definitions of ‘God’. Can you define ‘God’ for me?” (Hehe… nasty, that. God is beyond definition, not so?)

The language of angels, the language of men, and apparently no-one that is able to translate? Fools!

I need to get some more pro-science posts out, in preparation for the launching of the P-campaign. That pig better start running soon, else I’ll go mad. Again. A bacon-related deadline passes on Monday so hopefully I will have time to work on getting the pig flying next week. I’m hoping it will succeed at its first flight before the next full moon.

I would love it if you could give your opinion, with specific reference to your definition of “religion”. While you are welcome to debate the issue in the comments, I’m slightly concerned it might frighten some people away. Thus, if you are interested in debate, enjoy. If you are not, don’t read any of the comments, just add your own opinion via the form at the bottom. Ignore any responses people direct at you. Feel free to use a pseudonym if you like.

In my follow-up, I hope to address both sides of the debate, ideally defusing any arguments that spring up below. In effect, I will be defending your viewpoint for you. (This is why I discourage taking part in any debate, unless you are the type that enjoys recreational arguing.)

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

I would not vote for someone who does not understand religion. I don’t care if he’s an atheist or a theist, if he wants my vote, he needs to understand how the population thinks. The Out-Campaign serves only to dilute the meaning of the label “atheist” to the point where it no longer means “I don’t understand religion”. At that point, it becomes harder to discriminate based on how informed or uninformed they are.

South Africa long had the policy of not accepting blood donations from non-whites, purely because statistically, “white blood” was more likely to be AIDS-free. How is that for a can of worms? Statistics, dangerous stuff. Naturally, this policy was forced to change. I don’t know what statistics they now use to determine what blood is “safer” and what is “less safe”. Skin colour is a label, just like “atheist”. It means only what we make it mean. What is wrong with “freethinker”, “post-theist”, “post-atheist”, “naturalist”, or… um… I dunno, a gazillion other words? Ah, yes, we need to “stand together”. I think Dawkins realised he’s all alone (that’s hyperbole, guys), and created the Out Campaign to rally people to his side, when he noticed The God Delusion was not having the desired effect. (That’s just what I think, not necessarily true.)

Anyway, back to the story: I was also unable to tolerate things that seemed silly or wrong, but I hated being judgemental. I’m too compassionate for that. It nearly killed me. So which side do I choose? I saw truth on both sides of the fence. This was really, really tough. But I kept searching. He who searches, shall find. After a lot of grief, I reached a point where I finally understood. Now I don’t even have to “tolerate”, I can simply “love”. Love all of humanity in all of its great diversity. And English sucks, because it only has one word for “love”. Kill the other languages, and you kill lots of wisdom about “love”.

So which side of the fence? You have only to realise that there is no fence!

I’m not sure which group has more diversity of beliefs: atheism, or Christianity. I suppose comparing atheism with theism might be more correct. Either way, we have atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, “brights”, skeptics, freethinkers, more… (Maybe we can even include atheistic religions like Buddhism? Naah.) Similar diversity in Christianity is grouped together under the label “Christian”.

So, what is heard by some people when “I am an atheist” is uttered? This is what some people hear:

I have no appreciation for my existence, I lack any sense of wonder. I do not acknowledge any mystery in the world. I am not at all thankful or appreciative for my existence (as I am not thankful to the “original cause”). I just am. There is no meaning to life. It is all pointless. There is no action that can be labelled “good” and no action “bad”. I might as well just drink all day and all night, if that makes me happy. Hell, why not go shoot some people, considering I don’t have to be moral. There are no adverse consequences to immoral behaviour. I think all theists are stupid. They suffer from delusion. They are “dim”, while I am “bright”.

Yes, this is what some people hear, even if it is not what is meant. That’s quite a mouthful to de-stigmatise.

Again, to de-stigmatise the label, people need to get to know you, rather than your label. Only once they know you, can you make any contribution by telling them what label you use. Only then might they understand what you mean by that label. De-stigmatising the label is irrelevant, the aim is to de-stigmatising the world-view.

So this is the idea behind Dawkins’ “Out Campaign”. Many atheists out there have already built relationships with “religionists”. The “Out Campaign” aims to unify the efforts to de-stigmatise the world-view, through use of the label. Whether it will be useful for you to contribute or not, is something only you can determine. You know your audience, no-one else does. Do you care much for the “atheism” label? Do you think it worthwhile to de-stigmatise it? Or might it be counter-productive and serve only to stigmatise something else you’re standing for? Priorities… Tough call.

I have a very different approach, the post-modernist that I seem to be. (Dawkins seems a typical modernist.) Free people from labels all around, then they are much more free to develop their own world-view, rather than having it forced down their throats by some pigeonholing label. Have patience, the P campaign is on its way. (Give me another two weeks or so. And get me a copyrightable Red P!)

Do you think it is worthwhile de-stigmatising the “atheist” label? How do your thoughts about this post compare to your thoughts about the Christian language problem post?

Further reading: Language Differences.

For the time being, I’m providing a free translation service on this website. Feel free to use it. However, my time is limited, so it may take some time before I get to your request.

Best wishes, God bless, Shalom,
Hugo

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

The only difference between theists and atheists, is that we speak different languages.

This post proved much more difficult to write than I had hoped. The draft I wrote nine days ago, when I sketched out my schedule, was completely inadequate. In fact, there really is a lot of ground-work and foundations that should have been laid before I tackled this post. As such, this post became a long one…

The Search for God

Humanity as a whole, has been “searching for God” possibly for longer than the age of the earth according to creationists. This search has been a journey that has passed along many potential “destinations” en-route. Still the journey does not end, understanding develops more, our “relationship with God” continues to change and grow.

A long time ago, the polytheistic understanding of “God” was common. “God” consisted of a whole pantheon of gods, and humanity was at the mercy of the soap-opera playing out on Mount Olympus (or equivalent). As the power shifted amongst the gods, the humans’ loyalties also shifted, to whichever god then supposedly had the upper hand.

(Dealing with middle-eastern religion now:) A contrasting, revolutionary perspective of “God”, is that there aren’t many different gods that need to be worshipped. “God” became understood to be a “single entity”. Monotheism revolutionised human culture, and removed a lot of insecurity. Humans were no longer at the mercy of the big soap-opera in the sky.

I feel this really is less a case of humans being “atheistic” about all the other gods, than it is an understanding that consolidates all the gods into one God. A development, an improvement, in our understanding of the abstract notion of “God”, that thing “beyond human comprehension”. This is why that cliché popularised by Richard Dawkins irks me so much: “We are all atheistic about all those other gods, some of us just go one god further.” If I hear that many more times, it might start to irritate me as much as some creationism seminars do…

What is the difference between Islam, Judaism and Christianity? All three are monotheistic, all three worship “the only God there is”. Defined that way, they all have to be worshipping the same God (the only God there is…) The difference then, is merely in their understanding of that one God. Each of the three think they have a better understanding of that God than the other two. Possibly all three claim “God is beyond our comprehension”.

The (controversial?) question then becomes: might each not learn something about God from the other?

My discussion here is the difference between “atheism” and “theistic belief as a whole”, rather than between “atheism” and any particular form of Christianity. There is already great diversity within the Christian tradition. If I recall correctly, there may be something like 33000 different denominations? Many of these denominations probably think they have a monopoly on The Truth. Denominations with such monopolies on truth, should not bother trying to reach atheists, in my opinion. This post is addressed to the more humble denominations.

Humble denominations recognise that there will necessarily be diverse understandings of something that is “beyond human comprehension”, and recognise that inter-denominational conversation would be valuable to understand “God” more accurately. Each group can learn from every other, and in the process each group can also teach.

Christians that are humble enough, will be able to recognise there is value to be found in Islam and Judaism as well, that Christianity does not have a monopoly on “God”, and that each religion can learn from every other. In the process, again, each religion can teach. Only once the Christian has learned from the Jew what they believe and what they do not believe, can they open up a conversation which is mutually beneficial, where the Christian can maybe teach the Jew of other aspects of “God” which they might have missed, and vice versa of course. Amongst others, Brian McLaren has opened up such inter-faith conversations. He goes so far as to say:

“I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.” –A Generous Orthodoxy (found on Theopedia.)

I have yet to read A Generous Orthodoxy. Many more conservative Christians do not like Brian McLaren’s earlier works much. Do not let that frighten you away from The Secret Message of Jesus though, I have seen reviews saying something along the lines of: “no matter what your perspectives were of Brian McLaren’s previous works, you should give The Secret Message of Jesus a chance”. (amazon, kalahari)

To get back to the point, then, Christianity is very diverse. Monotheism is even more diverse than that. Pull in Polytheism, Deism and Pantheism, and in-betweens such as Panentheism, Pandeism and Panendeism… and you realise how broad and diverse humanity’s understanding of “God” is. And each tradition surely has at least some fragments of “The Truth”.

So, what about atheism then?

Godly versus Godless

I lack the right words, unfortunately. “Godly” and “godless” are not perfect, but they will have to do for now. Consider this Dutch quote:

“Ateis: zonder God,
maar niet goddeloos.”

Filosofie Magazine (hat tip to Auke at Psychohistorian).

Translated: “Atheist: without God, but not godless”. This defines the essence of what I mean by “godly” and “godless”. I am suggesting we could talk about two kinds of atheists, the godly kind, and the godless kind.

Atheism has been stereotyped, stigmatised or demonised in certain circles. The impression the word “atheism” gives in such circles, is someone without appreciation, without a sense wonder, someone who lacks humility or has no appreciation for mystery, someone who is not at all thankful or appreciative of his or her existence (because they supposedly show no thanks to “God”), someone that lacks a sense of morality, an immoral person.

What such theists are effectively doing, is projecting their worldview onto the atheist, and then adding an anti-God sentiment. In the theist’s worldview, the concept of “God” encompasses all of the aspects mentioned in the previous paragraph – claim you have no belief in “God”, and they think you are throwing out all of the above. They think you are a “godless” atheist. There may be “godless” atheists, but I have yet to meet one… on the other hand, I know many “godly” atheists.

What is a “godly” atheist, then? “Godly” atheists do have an incredible sense of wonder and awe at the majesty of the universe, sometimes much more so than the theist. Sometimes the atheist is much more aware of the incredible mystery that is out there. Often atheists have an incredible sense of thankfulness and appreciation for their existence. This may be hard for the theist to believe, as the theist directs his or her thankfulness and appreciation towards a personified God. (Humans understand how to be thankful much better, when dealing with a “person”, or a “personified” entity. “Personifying” things is a very human thing to do.) The atheist’s thankfulness and appreciation is more abstract, directed at “an unknown god” if you will. The lack of a clear notion of a personified God to whom the thankfulness can be directed, can even lead to a more overwhelming experience of appreciation and “majesty”.

Some atheists have an incredibly strong sense of morality as well. Some details may differ, they likely think fundamentalist religions’ homophobia is an example of immorality, or that discouraging contraceptive use or HPV vaccinations are some of the most immoral things done in the name of religion. Atheists are often shocked to hear that some Christians would not think twice about cheating on their spouse if it were not for the seventh commandment.

CS Lewis argues for the existence of God based on the existence of morality. Effectively, he defines the source of morality as “God”. The atheists have morality, they have a source of morality, why not call that “God” then? There has long been a tradition of attributing things we do not understand, to “God”. What’s wrong then with an atheist calling the mystery in the universe, the “original cause”, that which is beyond our comprehension, “God”? Can we personify the abstract thing to which atheists express their thankfulness and appreciation, and call that “God”? Some call any sense of a “higher power”, even our community or interconnectedness, “God”.

The only difference, therefore, is that atheists have a different understanding of “God”. I personally don’t feel this difference is greater than the diversity already found within theism and religion, which is why I state “the only difference between theists and atheists, is that we speak different languages”. In the language of the theists, “God” has a rather specific meaning. Because of this, the atheist does not use the word “God” to describe his or her notion of “God”, as it could be too misleading.

In “3001: The Final Odyssey”, Arthur C. Clarke had a thousand years of history to play with. He used this freedom to remove religion, and even ban the word “God”. (If the notion of banning the word “God” frightens you, what do you think about the notion of banning the word “Allah”?) However, they still needed a word with which to refer to “God”, abstract notion or not, so they created a new word…

Concluding Remarks

Understand the language differences, and honestly and humbly investigate what you can learn about God from an atheist. (After all, if God can talk to you through the mouth of a donkey, surely God can talk to you through the mouth of an atheist?) Learn what the Gospel is, go find out what Jesus taught. Then, we can have us a conversation.

What exactly is the “Good News”? Evangelising Christianity is about sharing the “Good News”. As such, it is important that the news is actually good. What might seem like good news to you, might not seem like good news from another perspective. It is important to understand this. As mentioned last time, it is important to look at it from an atheist’s perspective. This exercise may also help you understand the good news better yourself.

Below is a video titled “Kissing Hank’s Ass”. Be warned, this video tries to offend. Do not let it offend you, otherwise you will be unable to learn anything. Learn to turn the other cheek. Furthermore, I suspect if you are offended, it might be as a result of viewing it with an egocentric perspective. Instead, look at the video with compassion or empathy. Place yourself in the atheist’s shoes, try your best to understand how the atheist thinks. Also avoid the trap of feeling “pity”, that would also suppress a good understanding. Only when you understand how they think, will you have any chance to actually converse with them in a meaningful manner.

The clip is just over seven and a half minutes long. If your bandwidth is limited, you may read the script that inspired the video clip instead. There is also a sanitised version available, which replaces the words “ass” and “shit” with “butt” and “snot”. (The video clip also includes profanities. If such things bother you, read the sanitised version instead.)

…

It is now assumed that you have read the script or watched the video clip. If you have not yet done so, go do it! Also, think it over. Maybe come back to this post later, even.

…

What I think you should have learned from this (please share what you learned, let’s have a discussion!): “you are going to hell” is not Good News. All too often, however, this is the core of the news that evangelicals give to atheists. “You are going to hell (but I can show you how to avoid it).” There is no way you will get them interested with such news. Amongst other things, they do not fear a literal hell. So, what to do?

If this is a problem you are facing, it may be that you do not fully comprehend what aspects of the gospel would be considered good news by non-believers. I would suggest you read The Secret Message of Jesus by Brian McLaren (amazon, kalahari). That should get you started. I believe a lot of it is based on the work of NT Wright, a Bible scholar. I have yet to read NT Wright’s stuff itself, however, to the scholarly minded (or even the atheist), I could recommend reading Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg (amazon, kalahari), another Bible scholar. If you are in the Stellenbosch area, you are welcome to borrow my books.

If either of these books do not increase your respect for Jesus or your excitement about or your understanding of his message, let me buy you a meal at a decent restaurant if I know you personally, otherwise a cup of coffee or something similar, or maybe a beer: I’d like to hear your feedback.

Please be friendly in the comments. That doesn’t mean you can’t disagree, I love friendly disagreements. This blog is my home in cyberspace, and you are my guests – ideally, my friends even. (If we have not yet met, maybe we should…) Be sure to give a valid email address.

I suppose one of the biggest accomplishments an Evangelical Christian could hope for, is to convert a hard-core atheist to Christianity. The biggest problem is that evangelical Christians and atheists do not speak the same language.

The most important thing you need to do, before you start sharing with atheists, is to learn how they think. Like Paul, you need to walk the streets of Athens, you need to immerse yourselves in their culture, to walk their streets, to see and understand their altars “to an unknown god”. Only once you understand, once you can speak their language, will you be able to share the Good News. In fact, only then will you be able to fully understand the Good News yourselves. I repeat, the crux of the matter is this:

You need to learn to think, like they do.

This more or less concludes the advice in the first post in this series. Continue thinking until next time, and please keep in mind that arguments such as this one by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort:

are not at all effective. Such arguments will merely turn you into the laughing stock of the rational scientific world. (Update: If the clip stops working, try e.g. a Google search for ray comfort banana.)

This series will continue next week, when we will look at the gap in communication between atheists and Christians. We will show you what not to do, how not to share the Good News, as it will immediately push them away. The third post is the clincher, and will accomplish what Kirk and Ray can only dream about. Please share this series with your friends. May the world become a better place, may the kingdom come!