Atheism may have a marketing problem.
I notice many atheists being frustrated by the way so many religious people presume that a person who does not believe in God must be immoral.
Thinking about the manner in which the "classic Christian spiritual redemption story" has become one of the more emotionally gripping tools of religious evangelists, I slipped into a realisation that the religious belief/atheism delineation in these stories correspond 100% with bad life/good life descriptions. None of the people who relate their personal redemption stories say "Well, life as an atheist was actually perfectly satisfying and virtuous but I now believe in God and that's the only difference." They uniformly begin with a tale of woe or horror describing a life of misery, emptiness, sin, crime, drugs, prostitution - take your pick, but it's always awful in some way. Then they give their lives to Jesus and their life becomes good. They become good.
The idea that people become good when they "find religion" is so pervasive that it has become a cliche. This widely advocated theme has to contribute heavily to the perception of religious people that to be an atheist must necessarily entail living a "bad" life. Simple reflex would incline people to think that if Religious = Good, then Not Religious = Bad, right?
Given that, it follows that for someone to choose to live an evil life must be an act of evil, a choice of an evil person or the act of a person who is susceptible to the influence of evil. From the perspective of some religious people, then, it is natural to imagine that these "Atheists" are not only without the light of the laws of God, but actively choosing evil, sin and crime in their daily lives, and that is abhorrent, dangerous and Must Be Stopped!
It seems to me that atheism has a visibility problem. On the one hand we have a religious population who are routinely exposed to specimens of atheists who now repent of their sinful ways and live virtuous religious lives, so imagine that other people who have not found religion must live sinfully. On the other hand, we have your run-of-the-mill atheists who (I'm ready to bet) are no less virtuous or lawful than the religious section of the community, but who are not handed a microphone at religious gatherings and encouraged to weep with ecstacy as they talk about how awesome it is to live a lawful life of kindness while not believing in Jesus.
In fact, due to the nature of atheism, their atheism being a non-issue to the cast majority of atheists, most atheists are not readily identified to religious people as examples of people being atheists while not being evil.
Another category of people who do not get handed the microphone at evangelical gatherings are those who cease to participate in their religion. People who stop believing in religion and serenely go on with their lives are not greeted noisily by public gatherings of atheists who joy fully chant slogans as they hear their story of atheist epiphany.
We do hear about religious people who do bad things, but the religious establishment quickly point out that they could not have done evil while being true adherents to said religion. By default, as soon as someone who is religious does something bad, they become a defacto atheist. The opposite does not apply to atheists who do wrong. They remain atheists in the mind of religious people, and their wrong behaviour serves to highlight the badness of atheism. And of course, in the minds of atheists, an atheist who does wrong is thought of as a criminal, not neatly popped out of the atheist "us" into some religious "them" category as well.
Hmm. These may constitute arguments in favour of formal recognition of atheism in parallel with, but separate to, formal religious organisations. I'm not sure how that would work, because atheists are likely to be less interested in belonging to a formal organisation than cats are in doing synchronised swimming.
Thinking about the manner in which the "classic Christian spiritual redemption story" has become one of the more emotionally gripping tools of religious evangelists, I slipped into a realisation that the religious belief/atheism delineation in these stories correspond 100% with bad life/good life descriptions. None of the people who relate their personal redemption stories say "Well, life as an atheist was actually perfectly satisfying and virtuous but I now believe in God and that's the only difference." They uniformly begin with a tale of woe or horror describing a life of misery, emptiness, sin, crime, drugs, prostitution - take your pick, but it's always awful in some way. Then they give their lives to Jesus and their life becomes good. They become good.
The idea that people become good when they "find religion" is so pervasive that it has become a cliche. This widely advocated theme has to contribute heavily to the perception of religious people that to be an atheist must necessarily entail living a "bad" life. Simple reflex would incline people to think that if Religious = Good, then Not Religious = Bad, right?
Given that, it follows that for someone to choose to live an evil life must be an act of evil, a choice of an evil person or the act of a person who is susceptible to the influence of evil. From the perspective of some religious people, then, it is natural to imagine that these "Atheists" are not only without the light of the laws of God, but actively choosing evil, sin and crime in their daily lives, and that is abhorrent, dangerous and Must Be Stopped!
It seems to me that atheism has a visibility problem. On the one hand we have a religious population who are routinely exposed to specimens of atheists who now repent of their sinful ways and live virtuous religious lives, so imagine that other people who have not found religion must live sinfully. On the other hand, we have your run-of-the-mill atheists who (I'm ready to bet) are no less virtuous or lawful than the religious section of the community, but who are not handed a microphone at religious gatherings and encouraged to weep with ecstacy as they talk about how awesome it is to live a lawful life of kindness while not believing in Jesus.
In fact, due to the nature of atheism, their atheism being a non-issue to the cast majority of atheists, most atheists are not readily identified to religious people as examples of people being atheists while not being evil.
Another category of people who do not get handed the microphone at evangelical gatherings are those who cease to participate in their religion. People who stop believing in religion and serenely go on with their lives are not greeted noisily by public gatherings of atheists who joy fully chant slogans as they hear their story of atheist epiphany.
We do hear about religious people who do bad things, but the religious establishment quickly point out that they could not have done evil while being true adherents to said religion. By default, as soon as someone who is religious does something bad, they become a defacto atheist. The opposite does not apply to atheists who do wrong. They remain atheists in the mind of religious people, and their wrong behaviour serves to highlight the badness of atheism. And of course, in the minds of atheists, an atheist who does wrong is thought of as a criminal, not neatly popped out of the atheist "us" into some religious "them" category as well.
Hmm. These may constitute arguments in favour of formal recognition of atheism in parallel with, but separate to, formal religious organisations. I'm not sure how that would work, because atheists are likely to be less interested in belonging to a formal organisation than cats are in doing synchronised swimming.
posted by Jac | 2:44 pm
|
0 comments
