03/29/14

I do love caricatures.

NPR (with which I've fallen in love) ran a story many days ago about childhood beliefs. A psychologist(?) wrote that while childhood beliefs may seem naive to us, children are employing the same logic that we as adults use, but they're doing so within a framework of more limited information. The more information gathered, the more sensible conclusions can be drawn via logic. Many NPR stories end with a question posed to readers, a way for us to "plug into" the conversation. The article asked, "Which childhood beliefs did you hold but have now discarded?" I clicked the link to see people's answers, though I knew precisely what most people would write. Sure enough, I was right. The biggest childhood belief discarded in the face of new information was belief in God; the idea being that children are taught that God exist, but as they grow into mature (and thinking) adults, they will "learn" that God doesn't exist.

This irks me, and let me tell you why. First, belief in God isn't something you "learn." It's an unprovable assumption, no less unprovable than the assumption that He does not exist. Second, belief in God cannot be "learned" in the same way that you can learn mathematics or world history (or colonial history, for those so inclined), so to say that you have "learned" God doesn't exist doesn't make sense. Third, the assumption that God does or does not exist serves as a sort of framework for the way we interpret our lives; God's presence (or absence) can affect the way we see ourselves, our world, and the people around us; the assumption regarding God's existence (whether "yay" or "nay") doesn't come in lieu of the facts but, rather, as an interpretive grid through which we understand the facts. Fourth, to say that we have "learned" an assumption to be true is to broadcast the ignorance that has taken root in western society, especially among the "irreligiously elite." 

Atheism has become, in our western culture at least, the new elitism. By claiming to be an atheist, one isn't just espousing his or her view on the subject; to a greater and greater degree as the years go on, such a declaration is cultural rather than intellectual. We in western culture, proprietors of a naturalistic philosophy of materialist reductionism, often see ourselves as the pinnacle of civilization; we have it all figured out, we have the light to give to the nations, we have reached a point of understanding, and thus we serve as beacons to which the 2nd- and 3rd-world countries can flock. It's cultural arrogance and nothing less. A less recent NPR article showcased an ex-Wall Street tycoon whose own atheistic elitism shattered when he started practicing photography on the streets of New York. One of his quotes has remained with me: "Atheism is a luxury of the wealthy." Those who are self-reliant and self-sufficient are far more apt to declare God's nonexistence than those who are dependent on others for this or that. As atheism has become not only culturally acceptable but culturally praised, more and more people are embracing it without giving it much thought. At the heart of many claims to atheism is idolatry, a worship of the self that echoes the original temptation in the Garden; when one's greatest need isn't food or shelter, or anything one can't provide by his or her own efforts, the greatest need becomes autonomy. Others claim atheism as a revolt against any sort of authority, embracing this manner of thought to justify one's actions and desires in the face of a "conscience" that is rendered anything but by saying there is no such thing over and over again. These "new atheists" embrace every fad of atheism that hits the market, regardless of the fact that the most beloved anti-theists in mainstream thought and media are ridiculed by the majority of intellectual atheists. One stream of anti-religious sentiment, couched in interpretive science, has the loudest voices; in a world where people would much rather let others think for them, the loudest voices become the determiners of truth. 

Of course, not all atheists embrace atheism as a form of idolatry, or self-justification, or simply because it's the next fad in western thought and it jives well with Apple products. Many atheists are atheists because they have given the issues much thought, they have examined different interpretations, and they have come to their convictions by way of an intellectual boxing match. In the same way, not all religious folk come to "the cloth" with pure motives (indeed, I'd say most of us haven't), but if the religious can be so misled (as atheists claim), then why can't atheists be so misled, as well?