Making Sam Harris Proud
Posted on June 25th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
21% of Atheists believe in god. What this means is that Atheism has become a cultural designation, rather than a theological statement. Some are likely declaring themselves atheists as a statement of hostility to organized religion, rather than to God. ~Steven Waldman, on new Pew survey numbers
What it means is that one out of every five “atheists” doesn’t know what the word atheist means. It is certainly some kind of statement–an ignorant one.
Filed under: religion
I’m sure the number of people who call themselves Christian, who don’t know what that actually means, is much higher than 21%.
If you can find evidence that a fifth of Christians say they believe in Vishnu or that they don’t believe in God, or something comparable, then you might be right. But not understanding one’s religion very well is different from not knowing the simple meaning of the label you choose to apply to yourself. Christians do tend to understand that it has something to do with Christ, even if they are extremely fuzzy about who Christ is and what following Him entails.
What struck me was the question asking respondents to answer whether “my religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life, OR: many religions can lead to eternal life.” Solid majorities of all Christians chose the latter answer. I have read some commentators hailing this as the triumph of tolerance. It seems to me to be a poorly worded question. When the Christians of my acquaintance (almost all of whom are not theologically astute) talk about other Christian denominations they commonly say other religions. Maybe this is just an Indiana thing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if many Christians hear that question as asking whether other expressions of Christianity also “lead to eternal life.”
I think, to be fair, that that’s not exactly right. 21% of atheists believe in God or a universal spirit (the Pew question doesn’t distinguish). Since I think even Sam Harris himself has some kind of crazy mumbo-jumbo spirituality thing going on, he might have said he believes in a universal spirit. Not quite the same as God, though, and nor does it make “atheist” a cultural designation.
I see. Well, even the universal spirit business is a bit strange for an atheist–since God is an omnipresent Spirit–but I expect that the respondents may mean this in a personified Universe sense.
I agree that it doesn’t make atheist a cultural designation. At most it seems to mean that people who are not conventional theists of one of the world religions refer to themselves as atheists, even if they are basically pantheists.
Daniel,
Somewhat true, but unlike Christianity, there is no particular dogma to atheism, and for that matter, no clear definition of God that defines non-belief and which allows a person to definitively state whether or not they are an atheist. An atheist could well believe in God, but not see God in theistic terms. A Buddhist, for example, or a Jain. I would question whether Sam Harris is actually an atheist given the strict definition of the word, rather than a looser one. I would gather that quite a few people answer the polling question in the affirmative because they don’t believe in the standard theistic model of God.
A Buddhist might be able to say he believes that God exists or gods exist, but that they are also caught up in dukkha and have no way to free us from attachment, but I’m pretty sure Jains are well and truly atheistic. Unless I’m wrong, they don’t believe any gods even exist. It seems to me that you could call yourself a non-theist (not very catchy, but more accurate) to make the same point. The word atheist in modern usage implies the negation of belief in any and all deities. Certainly, in antiquity to be accused of being atheos meant something very different–martyrs were charged with being atheists, even though they clearly believed in a deity.
Actually, Buddha answered all questions about the existence of God with “noble silence”. So no Buddhist is required to either believe or not believe in God. To a Buddhist, the point is to go beyond concepts, even the concept of God. It isn’t even a form of agnosticism, but a desire to set concepts aside and no the “true nature” of all things. One could call that true nature “God”, but one could also call it “silence”, or “emptiness”. Which is why a number of atheist-leaning westerners find a lot of empathy with Buddhism in their spiritual life. However, the same “noble silence” is interpreted in a more positive way by Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings that posit all kinds of Gods, Goddesses, and celestial saints and Buddhas, so long as they are understood to be ultimately “empty”.
As for Jainism, it’s very similar to Buddhism, and often seen as the source or at least a precedent for much of Buddhism. They believe in the soul, in reincarnation, in the liberation of the soul through knowledge of one’s true nature, etc., they simply don’t posit a theistic source or medium for these things. Nonetheless, the notion of one’s “true nature” is seen in the same transcendentalist manner as one might see the true nature of God. So in one sense it’s not atheistic at all, but merely creates a definition of God that is not theistic in nature.
All of this is of course very, very far away from the modern scientific atheist movement, which is mostly devoted to a materialistic view of physical nature only, and denies the existence not only of God, but of the soul, any psychic or spiritual reality, and anything but purely physical processes. The problem here is that not all atheists subscribe to that view, and do indeed feel that some kind of spiritual reality exists above and beyond the purely physical realm. I think these people think of themselves as atheists who yet believe in a transcendental reality of some kind that could be called a non-theistic “God”. It’s not a huge number of people, but then atheism is a pretty small minority in this country as it is. And then of course there’s just the people who don’t beleive in the general judeo-christian tradition of God without having much of a sophisticated conceptual idea of what they really do believe in, but they don’t necessarily blanch at the idea of calling that “God”, whatever it is.
Also, it’s simply not true that Buddhists see themselves as hopelessly caught up in dukkha and have no way to become free from attachment. They believe that dukkha is self-created, and that the way to be free of it is the Noble Eightfold Path. That’s the message of the four Noble Truths. Oddly, they also believe in Grace, but they see Grace as pointing us to engage the Noble Eightfold Path, and giving us the strength to succeed in it.
Jeremy,
I wouldn’t be so sure that when people say many religions lead to God, they don’t mean exactly that. Certainly the loudest voices in American Christianity tend to voice a belief in the exclusive ability of Christianity to save one’s soul, but those voices are perhaps not representative of Christians as a whole, even those who are of an evangelical bent. There’s a basic humilty and open-heartedness to many Christians that make them inherently disinclined towards that kind of breast-beating sectarianism.
Daniel,
I was thinking again about this statement of yours:
“f you can find evidence that a fifth of Christians say they believe in Vishnu or that they don’t believe in God, or something comparable, then you might be right.”
I’m not sure that 21% of those who consider themselves Christians actually do believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I’ve know many, many Christians who, when you really get down to brass tacks, say that no, they don’t really buy the basic Christian theistic idea, but they still believe in God, and in Jesus, and have faith that this is a valid and true path of salvation, and the rest be damned, because they just like something about it in their hearts, and they can feel the truth of it. That’s a form of faith that in many ways is more admirable to me than believing if all the particulars of dogma and theology to the point where it “makes sense”. Recognizing that it may never make sense, but having faith in any case, is perhaps a greater way to approach God through Christ.
“, it’s simply not true that Buddhists see themselves as hopelessly caught up in dukkha and have no way to become free from attachment. ”
But I didn’t say that. I said they didn’t believe that gods could provide the means to become free from attachment, but that it was something that could be–and had to be–done yourself. I take your point about Jains.
Daniel,
I see my error. I mistook the pronoun “they” in your above post to refer to Buddhists themselves, whereas you meant the Gods were seen as incapble of providing the means..
Even so, the Buddhists who do incorporate Gods and especially living Gurus who have attained Buddhahood or Buddha Mind into their spiritual cosmology are often quite explicit about these beings providing the explicit means – Grace, Dharma, and Divine Spirit – that does indeed remove dukkha and awaken Enlightenment. It is only the pure Hinayana or non-theistic Theravadins (many Theravadins have their own celestial Buddhas as well) who emphasis the one does all the work oneself. Most others emphasis the power of the Guru, or the Buddha, to both guide and provide the essential means to make ones efforts fruitful, rather than merely a continuation of dukkha. Certainly the Mahayana and the Tantric Buddhists are greatly enamoured of the idea that only through the Grace of the Buddhas, and usually throught the medium of a living Guru who has received his awakening through the lineage teachings of the Buddha, that one can effectively awaken. The flower sermon, for example.
The general issue of self-effort vs. grace is one of the great unresolved dichotomies within the Buddhist tradition. Likewise the issue of sudden vs. gradual awakening. In general, I’d say it’s largely understood as a both/and matter of inclusive recognition of the need for both, not an either/or matter of one being necessary and true, and other other being illusory and impossible. Of course, “God” or “Buddhi” is not seen as a separate entitiy or thing, but as one’s own self-nature taking the form of the Buddha or Guru, and imparting the very Grace that is one’s own nature, not from a separate deity, but from the depths of one’s own being. It’s not a form of Arianism, in other words.
.