The religion of atheism
There is one tremendous and widespread mistake about atheism: that is, that it is not a religion - that it somehow even opposes religion. Many of us, including many Christians, accept this claim implicitly, using the nouns "atheism" and "religion" as opposites.( Read more... )
That is an excellent and key question in this topic. While we may find agreement that, as philosophies of existence, religion and atheism may co-exist in isolation, we must not ignore the cultural dynamics. The comparison between, for example, Sagan and Dawkins is an excellent point on which to focus. We (general) often focus on the egregious violence committed against the early Christians by the Roman government, but it must be emphasized that the punishments were for the crime of refusing to acknowledge and participate in the rituals of the state religion. History is rife with similar examples of religious violence. We should not be surprised that Dawkinsesque rhetoric is taken in that light.
The conflict I see is in the unconscious comparison between acquired and revealed. Christianity starts as a revealed (holy text, catechism, etc.) belief system; modern paganisms start as acquired (i.e. experiential) belief systems. Again, consider: one does not discover on one's own that a person named Jesus was the son of God, preached a radically new message for his time, and was executed-resurrected-ascended to heaven on behalf of humanity, then suddenly meet others who have the same belief. At some point well beyond our lifetimes, Wicca may morph into a revealed belief system, and arguably is already somewhat down that path. But, as a subset member of "paganism", it remains a belief system that one can at least to a certain point discover for one's self.
Another point of conflict is mythos. Christianity (and other belief systems) have established mythos that define the belief system in a sort of feedback loop. Wicca has a short list of core beliefs, but no unifying mythos. From where I sit, you are making the mythos mistake: you see unification structure in some religions, and failing to find it in paganism make the fallacious comparison underlying your (unfortuante, grin) usage of "religious masturbation". I would expect pagan reconstructionists to recognize this, since their effort is primarily focused on learning the original mythos and attempting to work it into contemporary contexts.
My rebuttal would look something like this: You expect a religion to partake in an established, revealed mythos that provides easily recognized structure and continuity. Modern pagans approach mythos as individuals, discover like-minded fellows with whom to form community and joint exploration, and acquire their beliefs as part of their journey.
That there are exceptions to my generalizations is stipulated. I do not believe they necessarily invalidate the abstract level of my argument.
Reply
Reply
Criticizing a belief system in terms of one's own belief system is invalid. It becomes a projection of one's beliefs onto the mythos of the "target", giving utterly predictable, false results like "modern pagans don't have a unified creation myth, therefore they are not a religion."
I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I do mean to reject the notion that Christian apologia has much credibility when it criticizes other belief systems. I apply the same standard to my fellow pagans when they engage in Christian bashing, and I reject the same from Dawkins and his "talking snake" snark.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment