While this diary is inspired by the recent meta-conversation occurring in the wider community, I have felt that there is a disconnect between the way some atheists like myself feel and what motivates our actions, and what is believed by the religious. I decided to write this down, not as some grand treatise of Atheism, nor as an apology in either sense of the term, but just to share my thoughts and opinions on debating god, and why some atheists act as I do.
In general, I think there is a feeling among many of the religious, especially the religious left, as well as many agnostics and atheists that there is something shameful or even evil in the attempt to change someone's religious views. And historically, it is very understandable why that should be: often one's religious views have not been changed via conversations- even heated ones- but by the sword. Christians were murdered by pagans, pagans were then murdered by Christians. Arians were purged from Christianity not through the force of reason but through the force of Rome. Islam did not spread solely through the force of words into Spain, and it was removed with just as much force. Nor is this ancient history, ISIS and the Troubles in Ireland are just two cases of where religion has been and is being forced onto others or used as justification for murder in our lifetimes.
In that context, a powerful desire for an exceptionally hands off philosophy on religious belief is utterly understandable and reasonable. We simply don't discuss religion. It is exceptionally rude to go door to door, or to do missionary work involving converting, or to use pressure tactics to convert people in any way. And a lot of that is reasonable in its own right. The use of social pressure to convert is still very powerful in conservative religious groups, either shunning unbelievers or deconverts as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, or using tactics like befriending people simply to bring them to the church are rightly seen as unsavory and somehow immoral.
However, we also tend to- again as liberals and especially those who are liberal religious- believe that there is something inherently problematic about trying to convert or change minds through dialogue and debate. I have heard, on this site and elsewhrere- that trying to convince people of atheism is just like Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door, and isn't that just as bad?
The thing of it is, though, that as a strong follower of the liberal tradition, I and I think others like me do not see either the act of an atheist debating nor the JW converting as -inherently- wrong. I think the JW is wrong because their philosophy is harmful and their group organization involves many unhealthy social norms. But this does not mean that I think the process of even going door to door to discuss their religion is itself wrong. It is, in many ways, like politics. In the liberal tradition of freedom of thought, we believe in lively debate over ideas in order to get closer to the truth. We certainly understand this in politics, where we often debate over issues of great contention, including war and peace, social justice, the distribution of wealth and the foundations of government. What differentiates atheists like me then from so many others is that I do not see religion as -inherently- dissimilar from those things. It is a system of beliefs about the world, which can be either true or false, harmful or helpful, and therefore worthy of debate and discussion. Most of all, like political beliefs, they are not worthy of the sort of deference that says that even if I think they are not for me that doesn't mean they aren't wrong. In this tradition of thought, I follow by saying that if the religious beliefs are wrong they are wrong, and if harmful, they are harmful and they should be discussed as such. If I am wrong on that front, it can be shown to me through reason and discussion, but it is not itself worthy of any more protection from the insights and criticisms of reason than any other belief.
What I think this leads to is substantial conflict, because this system of thinking is in some ways new or at least newly allowed into the world. My username comes from David Hume, who wrote a book debating religion in the late 1790's that had to be published posthumously because atheism was at the time still punishable by death. Shelly was kicked out of Oxford for his lack of belief, and there are still laws on the books- though unenforceable- barring atheists from office in some parts of the united states. This sort of debate on religion, requiring the openness and publicness of atheism has not been found in the public eye in the United States as easily as it might. It is certainly not as new as some might think, springing up in the past decade. There is a strong tradition of freethought tracing back at least to Ingersoll and Cady Stanton in the 1800s. But that public discussion of atheism is still relatively new and in some ways threatening is a fact, and that liberals are especially reluctant to challenge religion on the grounds of avoiding the pitfalls of the European religious tradition is I think also true.
But there are many of us who do feel that religion is like politics, something that must be debated and brought into the openness of our society for our democracy to thrive. We cannot have a full liberal discussion on public policies if our fundamental traditions and moral and metaphysical foundations are not brought into discussion. It is impossible for me to convince anyone that my political beliefs are true unless I have a chance at convincing them my bedrock beliefs about the universe are true. And the opposite is true as well. This can be as deep as bringing out that I cannot necessarily convince people of the vast importance of climate change if they believe in an afterlife because the meaning of the death of our species simply means two different things to us. There is a fundamental difference between the cessation of all consciousness in the universe and merely the cessation of the creation of new consciousness or a merely temporary suffering. Or it can be as simple as that I don't want to waste time demonstrating that marriage equality is consistent with your religion. Because I am sure it is in some tradition or other, but it is irrelevant because your religion is false and we are wasting time fighting to reconcile ancient texts and beliefs with the obvious rights our gay brothers and sisters deserve. Again, this doesn't mean that the religious cannot be liberal, far from it. There are liberals in nearly all public religious traditions- Christians, Jews, Muslims, Daoists, Pagans, Bahai, Animists and so many more. But we cannot truly discuss our political beliefs and be on one common footing if we do not discuss our underlying beliefs. We can be allies, fighting in common cause, but we can't be united. In some cases this is unimportant, and in a few cases this can be all important.
Now I suppose I should say that this doesn't mean that I am always looking to deconvert you, nor to bring God into everything. Sometimes it isn't relevant, sometimes I don't want to, and sometimes it would be rude and harassing. If someone doesn't want to talk, it is rude and wrong in most cases to continue talking.
However, I do think there is a great deal of value in discussing in honest, frank, and real discussion and back and forth our underlying beliefs. I don't mean the sort of weak-willed 'discussions' where we both say what we believe without any desire for a change of mind, but those real discussions where we all seek the truth. I think an open discussion like this can lead to a better society.
There are many other things I'd like to say. I want to talk about how awful it is when I am told I shouldn't self-identify as an atheist because I don't meet some religious person's vision of how certain I need to be of God's non-existence to be one. I want to talk about how it hurts knowing that I will never not ever be a Senator because of my lack of religious beliefs. I want to talk about how becoming an atheist, for me, meant deciding to make sure I followed the truth- no matter how painful or hard to face- to its conclusions. And those conclusions led to me recognizing white privilege, male privilege, cis and straight privilege, the economic injustice of our society, and made me into a fiery progressive. I want to talk about how being an atheist doesn't necessarily make one into a good person, how many atheists are terribly sexist, profoundly racist, and all around fools. I want to talk about how Christian privilege is as real as any other, and why even if atheists insulting Christians isn't cool, it isn't the same as the marginalization atheists feel by Christians, nor equivalent to atheists making the same comments about marginalized religious groups. But these are big topics. For now, I just want to be able to talk religion with good faith, an honest intent to get to the truth, and in a liberal tradition that says all beliefs must be questioned and that an open society requires a free exchange of ideas.
So why do I sometimes- not here perhaps- but sometimes try to convert you to atheism? Partly it's because I want us to agree on a fundamental truth, because we can't both be right. If I'm wrong I want to know, and if you're wrong I think it's good for you to know. Sometimes it's because I want to cut through what I see as nonsense and what you see as important to get at what I see as good. And sometime's it's just for fun because we both want to argue philosophy. But always it's because I respect and want to expand the liberal tradition of inquiry. My atheism is a small part of my burning desire to face the truth and to make the world better, and I want to share that with the world. I don't necessarily expect you to agree, but I hope you will at least consider engaging.