This post won’t be as well researched as my last one was (not saying it was amazing…), or as long.
I had a thought today that interested me.
My impression of the average American atheist has generally been positive. They sometimes come from a religious background that they have since rejected as their philosophy*, and invariably have a genuine respect for knowledge and an insatiable interest in the sciences. That being said, I more often than not find in my discussions with self-described atheists, they often have not actually looked into the different theologies and doctrines of the various world religions. By “looked into”, I mean studying what such traditions have to offer, as well as what their actual worldviews are, and then incorporating this new understanding into discussions of religion with those that are theists, as well as with their fellow atheists. Why don’t most atheists incorporate such insight, instead of arguing against religion in general as one broad category?
At first glance, this question probably seems a little silly. Why would an atheist have any interest at all in religion? Most atheists subscribe to a philosophy of physicalism, where the physical world is all that their really is, and all thought processes and events can be attributed to regular natural phenomena and nothing more. This means that any supernatural doctrine or worldview is fallacious in their eyes. This doesn’t mean that each religion is exactly the same, in their eyes, but it does probably mean that they think each religion should probably be treated as such in discussion.
It literally pains me, when discussing religion with atheists, when they group all religions under a single banner of a “single, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity”, usually from their experience and subsequent rejection of a Judeo-Christian background. This immensely discredits most Eastern religious traditions, which subscribe to the theory of pantheism, where the universe is God, as well as all things and beings in it. The concepts of reincarnation and other non-Christian religious ideas are forgotten by this simplistic grouping by atheists. The differences between Yahweh and Brahman are so striking and interesting from a philosophical and historical standpoint, that you can see why it really is painful to hear them cast in such a simplistic light. Even the tremendous variation between the different Monotheistic religions, or even just Christianity, receive merely this cursory categorization.
I suppose my real question is why don’t the various religious doctrines even interest atheists? I was not raised religiously, and can’t be said to be religious now. I’m an agnostic theist, which means I believe in a God, of some sort, but think that the nature of that God can’t really be known to Man, because we are fallible. A better way to say this might be that there’s some aspect of the universe that can’t be explained by pure physicalism, but that no religious doctrine knows exactly what it is (they might all be right!) Despite my non-religious nature, I find the different doctrines and beliefs that humans have created to be amazingly interesting. Our diversity in such thought and action should be one of the most cherished aspects of our human heritage. What people believe should elicit respect and understanding, instead of the abstract categorization that some atheists seem to treat it with. I’m sure there are many atheists that are well-read in the various religious traditions, but I seriously doubt that it is a majority. Discussions of religion between atheists and theists are fantastically interesting when they don’t devolve into nonsense because of misunderstanding. I know that theists can be just as misunderstanding, but this particular side of the argument just intrigues me in a certain way.
It just doesn’t follow that not believing in religion should mean that a person should have no interest in studying it. The anthropologist studies an Indonesian tribe, but then returns back to a modern University when his study is completed. Religious study doesn’t require that you be religious. People still study and understand the Ancient Greek pantheon, despite the fact that they don’t subscribe to that faith. I have two theories about this. First, those that are atheist seem to have a greater interest in the physical sciences, like biology, chemistry and physics, and maybe aren’t as interested in the social sciences or history. These studies are essential to any theological understanding, and if they don’t do more than just intrigue you, religious thought may be more difficult. Second, some actions committed in the name of religion (Crusades, extremism, Christian science) by minorities of religious people may predispose people to shy away from deep study in them. These actions cast religious study in a negative light, despite the fact that such actions are done by individuals. “Religions” themselves are abstract concepts used to categorize beliefs that individual people hold. They alone are responsible for their actions.
This has been an observation by me that has puzzled me, and that may be all it is. Maybe other people deal with a lot more well-read atheists than I do…
*This post I’m going to categorize as “philosophy”. I’ve always thought of religious ideas as being philosophical in nature, although religion obviously entails much more than just that.
