More atheist wisdom from "We of Little Faith"

The more I read of Kate Cohen's book, We of Little Faith: Why I Stopped Pretending to Believe (And Maybe You Should Too), the more I enjoy what this talented writer has to say about openly, honestly, and bravely proclaiming one's atheism.

Here's some additional excerpts from the book, which I wrote about in an initial post a few days ago. First, I recall that one of the comments on the post said that it isn't possible, or at least very difficult, to be a Jewish atheist, since Judaism is a religion that believes in God.

That ridiculous, as anyone familiar with the actual beliefs of people in a religion would know. For example, there are Christian pastors who don't believe in God, though they don't proclaim this from the pulpit.

More obviously, it is common to be an atheist Jew. Cohen says this about atheism and being Jewish:

Whether someone is "still Jewish" is not a question you hear in an area with a sizable Jewish population. Anyone familiar with Jews is also familiar with the concept that being Jewish is as much about belonging as belief. It isn't something you change easily. Or at all. You can be more or less observant, you can downgrade to "culturally" Jewish, but it's hard to give it up entirely. I'm pretty sure you can even convert to Hinduism and still be Jewish. 

In a chapter with the engaging title, "Sorry, Honey, God's Just Pretend," Cohen speaks about why she taught her children that we know there's no God, rather than leaving the question of God open. I heartily agree with her logic.

One day, in the middle of doing her math homework at age nine, after having heard a casual remark I made to her father, she [her daughter] paused, pencil poised, to ask me the obvious but as yet never asked question: "How do we know there's no God?"

It's a question atheists get asked all the time, often by people who think we should use that gentler term "agnostic," people who are comfortable with doubt and suspicious of certainty. In answer I would say that all evidence points to the fact that God is a popular and useful fiction, and that no evidence points to the fact that he actually exists.

...So chances were good that teaching my kids there was no God would likely result in... their not believing in God. I can't prove that God does not exist. So how can I teach my children as fact something that cannot actually be proven? Isn't that intellectually irresponsible?

Well, I can't prove that monsters don't exist, either but I have no trouble saying to my kids, "Monsters are pretend." What, after all, is the alternative?

"Mommy, are monsters real?"

"Well, honey, I don't believe monsters are real and neither does your father. Certainly, we've never seen one. But a lot of people do believe they are real. What do you think?"

Of course not. Monsters are pretend. No one would accuse me of indoctrinating my children with a nonbelief in monsters or of brainwashing them with my skepticism about the paranormal. And yet that's precisely what happens when the subject is God.

...Belief in God seems harmless enough. What's the harm in imagining that a kindly old man runs the world? There is none -- as long as they know it's not actually true. Being able to tell fact from fiction comes in quite handy in life, personally and politically, and at least one study has shown that kids who are raised with religion can't do that as well as kids who are raised without it.

So, sure, let's imagine Great-Grandma looking down on us from heaven, but let's be clear we are making that up. And because our surrounding culture tells us, over and over, that heaven might be true, we have to be extra clear that the heaven scenario is no more plausible than the idea that Great-Grandma's spirit has been distilled in a bottle of scotch.

When the kids are old enough, they can have a sip. Or that Great-Grandma now haunts the 793s of the public library; where, in the Dewey decimal system would they like to be filed?

It's okay -- not just okay; mind-expanding, pleasurable -- to think about those things. To picture an alternative universe and ponder its metaphorical significance. I'm happy to do that and happy for my kids too. But I would never say such speculative flights of fancy are or even might be factually true, and I would never say that of heaven or God, either.

Just as I would never say, "It could be that ladybug is in charge; one day you can decide for yourself," I would never say, "I don't think God is in charge, but who knows?" I taught my children there is no God. Or, to be more accurate, I taught them that there are lots and lots of gods, all of them fascinating and all of them invented by human beings.

...Each of these beliefs is something they could learn among the local religious offerings. Not just fiction posing as fact, but also, in some cases, wrong posing as right. Shall I refrain from imposing my moral values on my children as well?

Let's consider a few more imaginary conversations:

"Teddy says wives have to do whatever their husbands say. Is that true?"

"You know, people disagree about that. I think women and men are equal, but a lot of people don't. It sure is an interesting question."

or 

"My teacher says it's now legal for men to marry other men. That's gross, isn't it?"

"No, I don't think it's gross. I think two adults who love each other should be able to get married. But some people think marriage should only be between a man and a woman. They think men who want to marry other men are doomed to burn in hell for all eternity. When you get older, you can decide for yourself."

Not a chance.

...As a parent, I am not willing to say "that's just my opinion" about whether something is fact or fiction, right or wrong. All beliefs -- mine, theirs, Mike Pence's -- are not equal. Many are wrong. Some are harmlessly wrong (I'll go to heaven after I die) and some are harmfully wrong (gay people will go to hell after they die).

Comments

[Sant64]

No Brian, "Christian Atheist Pastor" is not a job title. The Christian pastors in the article you cited are all on the down low about their atheism because -- as they admit in the article -- they are afraid of losing their paychecks.

Likewise, there are no Atheist Protestants, Atheist Catholics, or Atheist Muslims. Catholic and Muslim or any religion and aren't nationalities, nor are they races. The concept of race is a social construct rather than a biological reality. It's a way that societies categorize and classify people based on various physical attributes such as skin color, facial features, hair texture, and more. However, biologically speaking, there is no scientific basis for distinct human races. There's no such thing as "race," except to racists. And therefore, anyone who says they are somehow ontologically different from other people based on their race or ethnicity perhaps isn't the champion of egalitarianism they think they are. Really, anyone who wants to categorize people by skin color or ethnicity or caste or race or tribe isn't any better than those who belong to a religion where one is judged by whether they've received initiation.

Thanks for the quotes. Whenever you ask people who subscribe to such ideas of human distinction just *howI precisely, they are different from those outside their chosen group, they don't offer much of substance. Let's be frank, the difference they're celebrating is just racism. Perhaps it's benign racism, but racism is what it is nonetheless.

As for what the author says about belief in God being harmful...where is it? Oh, I forgot about the epidemic of religious men "telling their wives what to do."

I know of millions of people whose lives became radically better when they embraced the idea of a loving God who gives direction and cares about their welfare. For some strange reason, that huge part of the equation of the God question is never touched upon by atheists who are forever saying they believe in "science" but who are wholly unwilling to even consider the obvious benefits religious belief provides to many people.

[um]

>> All beliefs -- mine, theirs, Mike Pence's -- are not equal. Many are wrong. Some are harmlessly wrong<<

Some religions ban on penalties of their divine,
- the consumption of pig meat
- killing of cows etc

I suppose there is no god that is interested in what happens in his creation after creating it and having installed all sorts of natural laws to keep it going.

How came these bans in to existence?

Every-time the elite of a tribe, community or other social group finds that a certain behavior is causing harm to the group as a whole they seek shelter behind the divine in order to be sure that the response would be greater than when expressed by them ...fellow human beings ...

If the cows in India would not be declared holy and sacred by now they would not even know the WORD cow let alone the living creatures by that name. These cows over time have save many a life with their milk..

The same holds for pigs meat that easily can kill people due to trichinae

What ever ban is attributed to the divine is always related to the maintenance of the welfare of an group..

As often writes ...there is no god that is interested in who lives where and under what conditions. but it was certainly in the interests of the tribe of Abraham in search for a place to stay, that he came up with that divine command.

YES .. I do believe he had that vision or that he could have had that vision ...after all before and after him, many have come with all sorts of visions ... but ... they were always related to the survival of individuals or the group.

Religion is a cultural TOOL, and invention, like the wheel and the fire.. ...unfortunately it works only if its adherents have some degree of belief faith etc.

Atheist as a group, miss that talent in high degrees and it is statistical related to their analytical talents and command of language, etc..

With the growing access to education, that groups is growing .. in this country there are only small pockets of strict Calvinists protestants left. The fact that the Islam is at the rise has to do with identification ...they can make a stand in society by propagating their adherence to Islam ...it is all fodder for psychologists, sociologist. and cultural anthropologist.

Those that proclaim themselves atheists are not at all interested in the divine the same as so called "animal rights protagonists" most of them hate even animals and have never had one, they just use it for themselves to exorcise power.over others and make themselves SEEN, other wise just being unimportant living creatures.

[Appreciative Reader]

Kate Cohen rightly points out the fallacious special pleading that believers and apologists employ in dealing with the God question.

While absolutely, there's no question of force-feeding a child, no question of indoctrination; but surely it's irresponsible parenting to leave the child's mind a spotless tabula rasa, to be filled in at the child's discretion? Do we then leave the question open on whether the earth is flat? Or, to limit ourselves to questions not directly addressed in scientific research papers, whether cutting open still beating hearts off of shreaking men and women and children is what ensures the sun will rise again? Or that other kinds of sacrifice, including human sacrifice, ensures good crops, and victory in wars, and success in one's day to day business? Should we leave it to the child to buy chickens and goats, and collect frogs and beetles and bugs, to sacrifice to the gods every time there's a class test, because, as I imagine, there's no science research directly showing these don't help?

And as far as comfort, again, while sensitivity is called for, sure, extreme sensitivity, empathy, and gentleness; but are we to leave the child with the consolation of frolicking and feasting eternally with her dead elders and friends and pets, if only she, and they, made sure that they died fighting without fear or remorse? Should we leave her with the comfort of the prospect of 72 virgins (or if a child too young to appreciate virginal rewards, 72 eternally lasting flavors of ice cream maybe) if only she, and they, died in service of Allah, perhaps while wearing a vest specially tailored by wise holy mullah types?

Thanks, Brian, for this series of reviews of Kohen's work. And thanks to commenters, as well, for presenting your perspective. Thinking over all of this helped clarify the issue in my mind. While obviously I was in agreement, in principle, with Cohen; but I was in some doubt as to how that might translate to de facto parenting (as opposed to the idealized abstraction of it). While obviously a great deal of care and empathy is called for, as well as latitude when it comes to decided ideas the child might hold on to despite reasonable inputs: but I'm way more in favor of "indoctrination" now, on thinking this over, when it comes to actual truth --- and no, there's no special pleading there, at least no fallacious special pleading, in as much as it is NOT "indoctrination" to teach a child that human sacrifices, or chicken sacrifices, or beetle sacrifices, or prayers, will do nothing at all to increase her grades, not in and of themselves (albeit, sure, psychological focus might; but that can reasonably be arrived at differently than organizing beetle sacrifices, or praying to fictional deities).