I would like to introduce another term into the equation, a description of the religious "unbeliever" that is more appropriate. One may simply say, "I am a skeptic." This is a classical philosophical position, yet I submit that it is still relevant today, for many people are deeply skeptical about religious claims.
Skepticism is widely employed in the sciences. Skeptics doubt theories or hypotheses unless they are able to verify them on adequate evidential grounds. The same is true among skeptical inquirers into religion. The skeptic in religion is not dogmatic, nor does he or she reject religious claims a priori; here or she is simply unable to accept the case for God unless it is supported by adequate evidence...
Skeptics are in that sense genuinely agnostic, in that they view the question as still open, though they remain unbelievers in proposals for which they think theists offer insufficient evidence and invalid arguments. Hence, they regard the existence of any god as highly improbable. In this sense, a skeptic is a nontheist or an atheist. The better way to describe this stance, I submit, is to say that such a person is a skeptic about religious claims.
Paul points out that the new descriptor is positive and refreshingly honest -- too often atheism is connoted as a "faith statement", much like Christian or Muslim belief, which even in the face of contrary evidence may still be adhered to. If we are honest, and want to pursue the truth about religious claims, then we ought to carefully examine them and weigh their merits. Adopting a theists' presuppositions in order to determine the logic of their conclusions is thus almost a requisite for a skeptic, for unexamined claims cannot be begged off. Similarly, we would expect Christians and Muslims to adopt the presuppositions of, say, a naturalist, humanist, or physicalist, and carefully probe their conclusions, at all times considering reason and evidence, before making "statements of faith".
Some Christians have the intellectual honesty to have done this. Some claim that they "used to be an atheist". In some cases, we find that this aspect of their worldview was not arrived at through the same process of skeptical inquiry that Paul beseeches us to use. In some cases it was. In nearly all cases of conversion, however, we find that the conversion rate of Christian to "no religion" is double that of "no religion" to Christian.
Succinctly, I maintain that the skeptical inquirer is dubious of the claims
1. that God exists;
2. that he is a person;
3. that our ultimate moral principles are derived from God;
4. that faith in God will provide eternal salvation; and
5. that one cannot be good without belief in God.
Paul goes on to substantiate skepticism concerning each claim, but I especially want to focus on (3):
From the fatherhood of God, contradictory moral commandments have been derived; theists have often lined up on opposite sides of moral issues. Believers have stood for and against war; for and against slavery; for and against capital punishment, some embracing retribution, others mercy and rehabilitation; for and against the divine right of kings, slavery, and patriarchy; for and against the emancipation of women; for and against the absolute prohibition of contraception, euthanasia, and abortion; for and against sexual and gender equality; for and against freedom of scientific research; for and against the libertarian ideals of a free society.
True believers have in the past often found little room for human autonomy, individual freedom, or self-reliance. They have emphasized submission to the word of God instead of self-determination, faith over reason, credulity over doubt. All too often they have had little confidence in the ability of humans to solve problems and create a better future by drawing on their own resources. In the face of tragedy, they supplicate to God through prayer instead of summoning the courage to overcome adversity and build a better future. The skeptic concludes, "No deity will save us; if we are to be saved it must be by our own efforts."
It appears clear that we cannot rely upon "special revelation" to glean our moral codes from. Whose special revelation? Which interpretation? We can rely upon the innate and intrinsic function of human empathy. It is not "special" in the sense that differing socio-historical cultures have contradictory empathy functions. All human cultures, throughout time, comfort one another in times of loss. All take care of their sick. The methods, rituals, and religious influences may change throughout, but the empathy itself never has.
Why do believers line up on all sides of moral issues? I think the answer was best given in the May 20th op-ed by August Berkshire that I linked to in yesterday's post:
The Bible is like a Rorschach inkblot test: you can see just about anything you want in it.
Indeed, this book has been used (and the Qu'ran) to justify genocide, infanticide, racism, murder, male chauvinism, slavery, etc., countless times by countless groups. Others decry, "Well, they aren't interpreting it correctly!" In so doing, though, they admit that the book's interpretation is quite relative. Taking the OT at face value, in its commands to stone bastard children, adulterers, homosexuals, rebellious children, women who are betrothed and are raped and don't cry out loud enough to be heard...is a tough pill to swallow for modern Christians with modern sensibilities--those influenced by democracy and humanism, products of the Enlightenment, antithetical to the very Scriptures we discuss.
Taking the OT at face value is not necessary to derive contradictory morality to those who say, "well, God's standards have changed" (and thus admit to moral relativism). One need only look to the Apostle Paul, in his writings, to find justification for slavery, sexist discrimination, the death penalty for homosexuals (Rom 1:31-2), punishing those who dabble in "sorcery" (Acts 13:9-10), and generally relating the wrath and vengence of God to come to anyone who doesn't believe it. Of course, all of these lend themselves as "enablers" to modern-day theonomists.
Indeed, we need a few more "skeptics about religious claims". Being such will surely induce many believers to at least substantiate their own faith (as they are already supposed to, according to 1 Pet 3:15), and in so doing, at least engage in rational discourse with those of us who are nontheists. Telling others we are "just" atheists/agnostics is too often a conversation-ender, rather than a conversation-starter. Admitting to our skepticism, though, reveals a certain curiosity and desire to hear an apologia in order to determine its truth value.
And it is in asking that we know we will receive, and in their giving, we may find more in common with many theists than they beforehand thought ;)
Though ethical values and principles are relative to human interests and needs, that does not suggest that they are necessarily subjective. Instead, they are amenable to objective, critical evaluation and modification in the light of reason. A new paradigm has emerged that integrates skepticism with secular humanism, a paradigm based on scientific wisdom, eupraxsophy, and a naturalistic conception of nature. Thus, the skeptic in religion, who is also a humanist in ethics, can be affirmative and positive about the potentialities for achieving the good life. Such a person can not only live fully but can also be morally concerned about the needs of others.
________________
Technorati tags: Skepticism, Religion
