A defence of atheism: A rebuttal

An article was recently published in The Boar exploring the idea that atheism is a religion too, or perhaps should be considered as one. Harrison Coldray asserts that “it sounds ideal to the modern day spiritual sceptic, who can reap the benefits of religion without wholeheartedly endorsing its content”.

As a staunch, but often quiet atheist, I found myself, for the first time ever – wanting to voice my reasons for being one. Our silence on the subject matter will only serve to cement our position on the periphery and for misunderstandings to proliferate. As Coldray boldly claims, “If one says ‘NO’ to God, then one doesn’t need to say ‘NO’ to religion!”

Atheism, as it operates for me, is not merely non-belief in God, it is the active resistance to religion. To label it as merely non-belief suggests that we still subscribe to religion, but in an oppositional mode of thinking. Structuralist thought would contend that our lives still gain meaning from religion precisely because we still act within its confines but just in direct rebellion to its doctrines. I.e. religions have Gods, therefore I do not.

However this is a broad and reductive definition of atheism. Not only does it paint atheists as petulant, stubborn children who are simply defying traditional values, it also insinuates that we are therefore immoral and selfish people, because we are godless. Principles of community, collectivism, sacrifice and generosity aren’t foreign to me because my life is devoid of religion. In fact I would say I indulge in good manners and kindness to others, in spite of religion.

People often perceive atheism as a blank space which is perhaps born out of ignorance or having not made up one’s mind and therefore, as a site to instil religious doctrines and attempt to fulfil from that which is otherwise missing in your life.

Atheism, as it operates for me, is not merely non-belief in God, it is the active resistance to religion.

My beef is mainly with Alain De Botton who penned Religion for Atheists, and whom Coldray frequently cites. He has previously published a ‘Manifesto for Atheists’ which advocates 10 virtues for the modern age, much resembling 10 commandments, but in secularist terminology. I don’t disagree with any of them per se; ‘forgiveness’, ‘patience’ ‘empathy’, ‘self-awareness’ etc., but I also disregard the notion that we need religion, whether secular or non-secular to be able to live by such tenets.

I’m not trying to place myself and other atheists on a pedestal by claiming we are inherently better people because we don’t rely on a book to guide us through life. I am, and always have been, very open toward, and encouraging of, religion. However, the point that I feel Coldray misses completely, is not whether religion can be assimilated into the atheist’s lifestyle, it’s whether or not that would be desirable. As an atheist my stance isn’t merely against God, it’s against the idea that religion – in any description, or mutation – is necessary to me to live morally.

My beef is mainly with Alain De Botton who penned ‘Religion for Atheists’, and whom Coldray frequently cites.

De Botton argues that essentially atheists should ‘steal’ – a word he quite liberally uses, from other religions to form their own system of ethics and values. He contends that as atheists we have only ever had the choice to absorb doctrines and systems of belief that don’t engage us, or simply neglect beautiful rituals and traditions that are commonly practiced in religion.

I can’t quite articulate my fury at how ridiculous and narrow-minded this view is. Whilst it’s noble of De Botton to highlight the polarised and sometimes alienating disparities that atheists are often confronted with – no God must meant we’re all hedonistic thieves’ right? It’s even more problematic to attempt to solve that problem by saying we need a religion – whether in the traditional sense or not. The whole point is that I have chosen to live my life without a religion and I don’t need one to subscribe to its values.

Nowadays, the public would go ballistic if anyone were to try and infuse Islamic ideals with a smattering of Christianity, or merge Buddhism and Scientology. It’s ignorant and patronising to think that the values of one religion are superior and can provide greater insight into a fulfilling life than another. So I find it equally distasteful to suggest that atheists need a religion in order to be happy or honourable people.

De Botton’s belief that we need guidance is a nebulous and insulting one.

I take no issue with his perception that religion offers up benign and convivial ideas that enable society to flourish – I would agree that they do! But his belief that we need guidance is a nebulous and insulting one. He is implicating himself as a form of God that can proposition a manifesto, whilst also raising the idea that we are treated as far too reasonable and rational, and that we need some form of control to contain and dictate our lives. At best, purporting that atheism can be a religion is arrogantly didactic. At worst, it is churlishly despotic.

[divider]

Header Image Courtesy of flickr.com/ Chris Boland