<underfire> Atheism and Peace

[christopher.w.young at thomson.com]

Mary, Michael and Melani,
 
Thank you for sharing your views and opinions of things so important to
so many.  
 
First, can someone define 'absolute value'?  
 
Second, I am hoping that Melani can offer some thoughts around her
statement "aren't we invited to do -many- things, from fighting wars to
cleaning up the environment, "for the sake of our children." 
 
I am a bit concerned with this statement, as it implies that we
(Evangelicals) are obligated by some theological rule to fight in
wars....hmmm, I do not get a sense this is really the case- if one was
to take a biblical standpoint.  When I hear such things, it actually
makes me fall back on another representation you made- "that poor people
are being ideologically manipulated by a retrograde state".  Although I
am not articulating that poor people are being ideologically manipulated
by a state, I am arguing that theological texts have been historically
manipulated by the elites, who have changed the inherent meaning of the
doctrine to fit their own agenda.  
 
So, when I see Evangelicals praying in supposedly charismatic tongues
and worshipping a god, who encourages his followers to fight an illegal
war - I am definately taking the position that this group of believers
has been manipulated and perhaps their position in society is not
physically poor, just spiritually sick.  
 
We are coming to a place in society, where all religions will be
resounded to the same position as atheism - a position where meaning is
obsolete and belief in a deity is all but gone from history - an
"McIntyrean" world....  
 
CY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
________________________________

From: underfire-bounces at underfire.eyebeam.org
[mailto:underfire-bounces at underfire.eyebeam.org] On Behalf Of Michael H
Goldhaber
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 4:06 PM
To: underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
Subject: <underfire> Atheism and Peace



Mary,  et al., 

Mary Keller wrote:

	From this perspective the a-theist is signifying the
significance of their
	location in the world. When someone tells me, as you did, that
they are an atheist  I hear "I don't need God. I don't count on
transcendentals. I am happy to become worm food. I'm not looking for
wings."  From  my perspective the atheist and the theist are both
exercising the cognitive desire to  map out the significance of their
location in the world.

Mary, I mistook your original position, it would seem, but here you
mistake mine, and that of many atheists. [FOOTNOTE: Taken literally, a
disbelief in god does not necessitate a disbelief in an afterlife (e.g.,
the original Buddhism, in which to be released from the cycle of
reincarnation was a major goal) nor vice versa (Torah Judaism has "G-d"
but no mention of an afterlife; on the holiest day of Yom Kippur, one
prays only "to be inscribed in the book of life for another year," i.e.
not to die within the year.) But ignore these subtleties.]
Atheists believe there is no god. This has nothing to do with what they
would like. Further, as an atheist, along with many others, I would not
be happy to become worm food, in two ways. First, "I" will not exist
after death (except in the minds of others). My dead body will not
contain not myself; the self will have ceased. 

Second,  the prospect of death does not make me happy, but, no matter
what I might want,  heaven does not seem to be available as an
alternative.  Many atheists wish to avoid death simply by remaining
alive. Some, such as Ray Kurzweil, think that we have reached, or
shortly will reach, a time, when, at least for a fortunate few, life
expectancy increases by more than a year every year, due primarily to
medical advances, so living "forever" may become a scientific
possibility. 
Thus, for many atheists, life, at least their own, can become an
"ultimate value." Like other ultimate values, if taken alone, this can
be dangerous. Some people may ruthlessly harvest others' organs, for
example. However, most recognize that acting to prevent murder and
against violence can be mutually beneficial. Thus, I think it is no
accident that where religion has most waned, in Western Europe, we also
find, on the whole, quite little support for war, in comparison with the
past. 
The commonplace proverb "there are no atheists in a foxhole," can be
taken two ways. The common one, of course, is that being in foxhole
under fire leads to prayer. The other is this:  Without religious
feeling, why give up your life, the most precious thing you have? 

The fact is that much of western Europe's long history of war and
conquest was quite explicitly religious: the "reconquista" of the
Iberian peninsula, the various crusades, the eastward expansion of the
Teutonic knights, the thirty-years' war, much of the move into Mexico,
Cnetral  and South America, the Puritans in New England, the American
Civil War, etc.  Perhaps later the religion of "the nation" (the
"Motherland" or the  "Fatherland")  or the pseudo-religions of Nazism or
Marxism (both of which imposed belief)  to some degree held sway. Now
with social democracy, and no imposed religion, nor imposed atheism,
Western Europeans seem to have become much more peace-loving. 


Here in the United States, most military recruits and support for the
current war come from areas where religion is also strong - chiefly the
South and Midwestern and other rural areas. But, implicitly, even Bush
recognized, for all his rhetoric that "we are at war," that ordinary
Americans are sufficiently atheistic in reality that they do not want to
make any personal sacrifices whatsoever in this war.






Best,

Michael




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://underfire.eyebeam.org/pipermail/underfire/attachments/20061120/6a855806/attachment.html