Through sheer circumstance, I stumbled across this post on a blog. How refreshing. A thoughtful theist who doesn’t dismiss us outright as morally bankrupt because we don’t believe what they believe. Worth reading. She is, however, in the end still missing a good chunk of the point. Christianity, to those who know a bit of history, has already demonstrated itself to be “harsh, vindictive” and “unthinking.” All of the sky-god religions have, Judaism included.

Anyway, I disagree with many of her points (and the points made by her sources), but kudos to her for even giving us a glance. Most religios could give a flying fug what we think. I guess the book, and the article she references, were comforting to her. As if we atheists are going anywhere any time soon. ;-)

Atheism: Holding Us Accountable

In his recent book, The Twilight of Atheism (excerpted here), Alister McGrath praises atheism for what it does:

The greatest virtue of atheism is its moral seriousness—its criticisms and passionate demands for justice directed against the corruptions of, say, the French church of the 18th century.

The moral passion of atheism, especially when set alongside the laziness and complacency of European state churches in the 18th century, cannot be dismissed. Some Christian leaders at the time of the French Revolution saw that event as a divine judgment against a failing church. Some believed God was using the atheist critiques of the church as a means of reforming it.

Paradoxically, what propels people toward atheism is above all a sense of revulsion against the excesses and failures of organized religion. Atheism is ultimately a worldview of fear—a fear, often merited, of what might happen if religious maniacs were to take over the world.

McGrath also points out what atheism does not do. As one might expect of a negative philosophy–one based on what it is not, rather than on what it is–atheism, while fairly adept at criticizing belief in a Creator-God and a personality-steeped universe, can’t offer a viable alternative. McGrath says:

Reginald Le Sueur put his finger unerringly on the real point at issue: “The problem with humanism as such is that, although rational, secular, and ‘true,’ it is, in comparison with major religions, somewhat wishy-washy and just plain unexciting.”

Le Sueur recognizes atheism as derivative, its attraction residing primarily in what it denies rather than what it articulates as an alternative. So does atheism have a future?

No doubt it does—but not an especially distinguished or exciting future. Listen to John Updike: “Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position.” I have to confess that I now share his catatonic sense of utter tedium when I reread some of the atheist works I once found fascinating as a teenager. They now seem simplistic, failing to engage with the complexities of human experience, and seriously out of tune with our postmodern culture.

Atheism must insist that its colorblind view accurately reflects reality. Most of us, however, see colors–some of us constantly, some in dazzling glimpses. Increasingly, people are refusing to pretend otherwise.

So will atheism fade quietly away? That depends. McGrath says:

The future of atheism will be determined by its religious rivals. Those atheists looking for a surefire way to increase their appeal need only to hope for harsh, vindictive, and unthinking forms of religion to arise in the West.

If he’s right, the future of atheism depends upon whether the religous among us exhibit harsh, vindictive, and unthinking forms of Christianity–colors so ugly and harsh that people draw back, close their eyes, pretend to see only gray. That terrifies me: Someone may close her eyes to Christ, so as not to see me.

Christians know that our sins are, every day, counted as Christ’s; God counts them so. We need to be mindful that the unbeliever counts them so as well.