In recent years, it seems people have started discussing their religious beliefs more openly, even in countries where these have traditionally been a sensitive subject. We have seen a flurry of books that are perhaps best described as pop atheism: Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, and so on. Atheism is now a bestseller phenomenon.
Amid all this, it might be in order to ask why people discuss the topic, and what you really wish to communicate when you flag yourself, on your social network profile or in a conversation, as an atheist or as some kind of Christian. (I’m writing from a Western perspective, so I’ll simply consider the atheist-Christian divide without including other religions – similar arguments may apply in many cases.)
I’ve only known very few Christians around my age who carry out all the rituals, go to service regularly, and so on. I believe that most young people who consider themselves to be Christians don’t go through all the associated rituals on a regular basis. So this cannot be what is communicated by the label. More likely is that people want to communicate something about what they think society should be and where it should be going. They might associate Christianity with general conservatism, with romanticism, or with a certain set of ethical values. Maybe people who specifically label themselves protestant or catholic are standing up for the values, ethics and traditions of one of the two as opposed to the other.
I’m not a person of religious faith, but I find religion and the effects that religion has had on society to be interesting topics. It really seems to me, for instance, that the protestant emphasis on individual responsibility and salvation through work has shaped protestant cultures deeply. Something else, which I cannot describe since it is foreign to me, appears to have shaped the catholic countries. It’s not a stretch to say that Christian faith and Christian ethics created much of what Europe may be justified in thinking of as its historical successes – economic prosperity, science, enlightenment and so on. Nietzsche suggests that the scientific quest for truth in fact came from a fundamentally Christian need to seek the truth at all costs. How amusing then that today, science and Christianity are said to be in conflict.
Indeed, it is strange to see the almost dogmatic fervor with which today’s nominal atheists attack Christianity. It is equalled only by the dogma coming from those nominal Christians who bite back. The “debate” we see so much of is about names and what to call oneself, when what really should be discussed is ethics – what ethics did Christianity leave us with when it imploded, and what ethical values should we select in going forward?
It may turn out that some of our nominal atheists in fact live very Christian lives in all but name, if we consider their ethics and values. In short, in everything but the superficial.
Post a Comment