It is a worth reading article by Susan Jacoby, an atheist. She encourages atheists to show their positive, emotional and softer side. In the last few days, we heard atheism mostly based on negativism and vile attacks on religion.Viler the attacks, higher the slogans of Bravo and praise!
I think she should have condemned the extreme views of atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens. Unfortunately most of the views and tone of the language we heard in our Forum was closer to Dawkins. I have difference of opinion with author’s views, but I appreciate her demeanor and approach.( F. Sheikh)
Some excerpts;
“It is a positive blessing, not a negation of belief, to be free of what is known as the theodicy problem. Human “free will” is Western monotheism’s answer to the question of why God does not use his power to prevent the slaughter of innocents, and many people throughout history (some murdered as heretics) have not been able to let God off the hook in that fashion.
The atheist is free to concentrate on the fate of this world — whether that means visiting a friend in a hospital or advocating for tougher gun control laws — without trying to square things with an unseen overlord in the next. Atheists do not want to deny religious believers the comfort of their faith. We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.
Today’s atheists would do well to emulate some of the great 19th-century American freethinkers, who insisted that reason and emotion were not opposed but complementary.”
The author talks about Robert Ingersoll, the Great Agnostic of 19th century.
“He also frequently delivered secular eulogies at funerals and offered consolation that he clearly considered an important part of his mission. In 1882, at the graveside of a friend’s child, he declared: “They who stand with breaking hearts around this little grave, need have no fear. The larger and the nobler faith in all that is, and is to be, tells us that death, even at its worst, is only perfect rest … The dead do not suffer.”
“We must speak up as atheists in order to take responsibility for whatever it is humans are responsible for — including violence in our streets and schools. We need to demonstrate that atheism is rooted in empathy as well as intellect. And although atheism is not a religion, we need community-based outreach programs so that our activists will be as recognizable to their neighbors as the clergy.”
“Finally, we need to show up at gravesides, as Ingersoll did, to offer whatever consolation we can.”
To read full article click on link below;
Posted by F. Sheikh
The only notion common to the atheists of the world is their argument that God’s existence has not been proven. That leads down-stream to the argument why follow any religion based on the un-proven existence of God ? This feeble thread that runs common to all atheists is scarcely a basis to group them together as a homogeneous community. It is like bunching together all persons whose favorite color is blue. Would you call them people whose religion is blue color ? Atheists come in all shapes, sized, colors and hues, good bad and evil, just like the Believers of any organized religion.They too need to be taught good manners, responsibility, integrity and citizenship when being brought up from childhood to adulthood. Unlike religions Atheism has no ritualistic code of conduct, structured hierarchy or centralized leadership. To call them a religion unto themselves is neither logical nor that sits well with common sense.
This is in response to Wequar’s comments.
I agree that atheists come in all shapes, but Susan Jacoby’ s comments are directed in general for all atheists and general public also.. She is basically advising her fellow atheists to move away from attacks on religion (advocated by Dawkins and Hitchens) which has marginalized the atheists, and rather follow the example of Robert Ingersoll and show compassion, emotion and do not deny the religious people’s right to have comfort in their faith.
You have not commented on Susan Jacoby’s main point.
Her use of word ” Blessings” in the heading is also interesting, it has some “Holiness” connotations.
Fayyaz
There are three broad terminologies we are faced with in the discussions following the Dawkins debate. Theism is the belief in one or more deity, where the god or gods is personal, present and active in the universe. Atheism is the rejection of such a construct of a deity. .Agnosticism is somewhere in the middle where the existence of a deity is unknown or unknowable. The debates of the various theosophies is endless.
Theism and atheism are thus belief systems wherein the adherents have to accept the total package. That is why the true believers tend to be a fairly small section of the total populations while the ratio of atheists is miniscule. The bulk of the populations are accepting of the tenets but with varying degrees of agnostic doubts. The process is more open in the secular western societies while it is being worked out in bloody reformation in many Islamic countries.
At a personal level, as a scientist I can appreciate many of the points made by Dawkins and others. But unlike Dawkins and Mian Aslam with their atheistic certainty, I am accepting of the faith I was born in and continue to have bouts of agnostic doubts.
Dr. Nasik Elahi’s comments are very interesting.
Personally I need more time to fathom its deeper intellectual and existential ramifications of this comment. Prima facie, it looks reasonably OK and it may represent most of the individuals born in monotheistic traditions particularly
and polytheistic traditions referentially. My understanding is in Buddhism, belief in God/gods is not mandatory.
Dr. Nasik Elahi has created three categories.
(1) Believers
(2) Agnostics
(3) Atheists
I agree with the categories. But I may not agree with their attributes and characteristics as described by Dr. Nasik Elahi.
Dr. Nasik Elahi says that agnostics suffer from doubts and uncertainties.
Theists and atheists are certain in their belief systems.
My understanding is only Theists/Believers are certain about their belief system.
Agnostics are uncertain up to a certain degree. That is why they oscillate on the pendulum of belief/disbelief.
Atheists are relatively more clear headed when it comes to belief in God/gods.
Actually Theists and agnostics apply logic and reasoning selectively and situationally. An atheist applies logic and reasoning unconditionally, universally, globally.
If any concept does not pass/qualify logical and rational standards, for an atheist, it should be rejected. Whereas for theists and agnostics and believers do not apply logical/rational standards that rigorously.
An atheist is mostly aware of the differences between finite logic and infinite logic. Whereas the other two categories do not and some cannot differentiate
the differences between the two.
Yes I used ‘do not’ & ‘Cannot’ with clear understanding.
Most probably you will get. If not then you have to ask a question by entering your comments right here.
If you want to read the attributes of ‘ATHEISTS’, you have to consult ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins.
For non-atheists, atheism is a curse. For atheists, atheism is a blessing.
It all depends on your perspectives and vantage points.
A believer/theists can stand on a higher pedestal.
An agnostic pedestal can be higher than theistic/believer pedestal.
An atheistic pedestal can be higher than agnostic’s pedestal.
Here I am talking about abstract thinking, not about professional skills and money making capabilities.
Advanced abstract thinking can be acquired only through philosophy and pur mathematics. All other knowledge is about finite existence.
It is the monster of infinity which bedevils human mind.
It is only the western mind which has attempted to tackle infinity during the last couple of centuries. The question about infinity were raised by classical Greeks especially Zeno (Zeno’s paradoxes). But they were not intellectually addressed up to very recent times.
Freedom from dogma for intellectuals is of essence.
Which most intellectual get scared because of heights and abysses in the realm of intellect.
These are great comments on differences between Agnostics, Theists and Atheists. I have to make following points.
1- I think the difference between atheist and agnostic is more of an academic than practical in daily life, and that is why Robert Ingersoll did not differentiate between atheist and agnostic.
2- This sentence in you comments
“For non-atheists, atheism is a curse. For atheists, atheism is a blessing.”
This is one sided statement: I think the true statement is
“For some non-atheists, atheism is a curse and for some atheists, religion is a curse. For atheists, atheism is a blessing and for non-atheists, religion is a blessing.”
Interestingly ” Blessing” has spiritual and holy connotations.
3- This statement
“Freedom from dogma for intellectuals is of essence.”
I think you are referring to religion in dogma .This statement is atheist’s belief, but not accurate.
There are many intellectuals who are devout religious people.For example Abdus Salam , Noble Prize winner was devout religious person. Many people we know in our daily life who are religious, as well as high caliber intellectuals.
Fayyaz
I don’t know why the comments on this article are diverted about categories of believers, agnostics and atheists. The word “blessing”, holy connotations or not, is appropriate here
and I feel exactly same as the author; I have no idea how in the world it is comforting for the relatives of the deceased at a funeral that “Allah’s will, may be there is a “higher” purpose …and that the deceased is now with his/her creator,….this kind of talk goes on. I’ll find it a “blessing” that creator to whom the prayers of recovery were directed, had no “higher” purpose instead of listening to the prayers and it is what it is, the life ended. It is a blessing to know that your sufferings are no “test”, no curse/punishment or no “higher” plans, you have no one to blame, things go wrong, and you were not “picked”.
Truth is more comforting and a blessing.
Babar
In response to remarks by Babar.
If a family has a heart breaking tragedy of losing a child, and they find a solace, comfort and soothing in prayers to God/Allah/Christ or any other deity to pull through these painful moments-they have every right to do that. If Atheists, in similar tragic moments, find solace in their own ways, they have every right to do that. None of them has the right to tell the other-what is good for them in these painful and heart breaking times.
That is the point Susan Jacoby is making when she says”
“ Atheists do not want to deny religious believers the comfort of their faith. We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.
Today’s atheists would do well to emulate some of the great 19th-century American freethinkers, who insisted that reason and emotion were not opposed but complementary.”
I am glad you find the use of word “ blessing” appropriate.
Fayyaz