One thing that I have noticed recently is the preponderance of the non-religious/religious friction in the media that I have either stumbled upon or people have sent me. There was the NPR segment on agnostic holidays that a friend pointed me to, the holiday message from outspoken atheist Rickie Gervais that a friend posted on my Facebook wall, and a note by Stephen Prothero over on the CNN Belief Blog about new research data that links religious cities with high rates of violence.
None of this is really startling, of course. Every December, it seems as though the prevalence of writing on atheists and other nonbelievers rises in the media. The creche wars, for instance, are a media favorite. What the President says in his holiday address is another. Indeed, this is the time of the year for Americans to re-encounter their uneasy divisions between politically correct and genuinely honest. Part of that genuine honesty, however, is the general-suspicion-to-outright-dislike of anybody nonreligious.
One of the things that I have noticed from recent articles and campaigns, however, is the push to present evidence that the nonreligious are, indeed, quite nice people. And what is more, religious people are not as nice as we all think they are. Gervais mentioned it: "75 percent of Americans are God-fearing Christians; 75 percent of prisoners are God-fearing Christians. 10 Percent of Americans are atheists; 0.2 percent of prisoners are atheists." I'm not too sure where he got his percentages from, especially since 10 percent seems quite high for atheists in America, but the message remains: religious people do not have the monopoly on goodness and, moreover, they could learn a thing or two from atheists. Prothero's article is along the same vein, as was my post about the happiest nations in the world being the least religious.
It's this push to defend morality vis-a-vis atheology, to assert good choices with absent faith, that interests me. Is this only a recent question, or has this question been present throughout the history of unbelief in America? And if it has been a perpetual question, how have unbelievers responded? It seems today that there is a cat-and-mouse game being played between nonreligious and religious organizations, sometimes with funny outcomes (as with the bus ads in Forth Worth, Texas). And I would be inclined to argue that this cat-and-mouse game actually benefits both parties involved. For some religious organizations, the "battling" of atheists can seem like a rallying cry that would help solidify a congregation. (This has, in fact, been common throughout the history of unbelief in America. See Martin Marty's book The Infidel for more) For nonreligious organizations, the ire that these actions create could lend credence to the sizable minority in the US. Take heed, these acts are mere harbingers of something bigger.
All in all, I've enjoyed watching these battles play out in the media and in thinking about what they mean for the larger world of the unbeliever in America. As the rate of "Nones" increases, I find myself wondering what the life of a "None" looks like. Where do nonreligious families or parents turn for the ethical/moral training of their children? What social options are available for nonreligious families who wish to continue having ties to a greater community? And how persuasive is this image of the "ethical atheist"? Is the US ready for that?
(Alf: welcome back to your blogging)
ReplyDelete1) Where do they turn? One might hope that a burgeoning community of "Nones" would lead to the rebirth of philosophical thinking. Perhaps it might be too much to hope for, but I generally think that the rise of "Nones" could be good for raising the general level of ethical reasoning in the US public square and would benefit all sorts of communities.
2) How persuasive is this image? At the moment, though, I tend to think that the difficulty with a new moral climate being fostered (and with the improvement of the image of the "ethical atheist") is that such a "Nones" community must first provide some rather exemplary figures of ethical significance. Essentially, I think the American public needs a well-known, active, compassionate figure, an atheist Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King.
Until that time, I tend to think that the stereotypical image of the "godless, immoral atheist" is bound to prevail. Small pockets of "Nones" practicing quiet lives of compassion are not marketable material to change American opinion.
Hey Zack, thanks for your comment!
ReplyDeleteHm, an atheist MLK, Jr., would be excellent. I have the sinking feeling, though, that Christian churches in the U.S. somehow need the militant atheist to keep their churches together. That "Almost Christian" book by Prof. Dean that I told you about talks about how churches today are merely spaces where people come together to reluctantly or passively profess a watered-down theology that has little substance. Tied in with Martin Marty's "The Infidel" book, I find that historically the militant atheist has served as a rallying cry for clergy and congregations.
Add to this the fact that the media loves the sensational, so the militant atheist will always get more playing time in the media rather than the passive one. And, as well, to get an atheist MLK, Jr., or atheist Gandhi would require a vast amount of media coverage.
I'm really interested in seeing (1) how the percentage of Nones changes over the next few years (will it plateau? will it fall?) and (2) how the social avenues will change to accommodate this change.
Leave it to me, Guiliano: I'll put the god in godless someday.