Arrogance is found on both sides of the spectrum; the religious and the atheists. If a person claims to know the truth about something, they are automatically in jeopardy of becoming arrogant. Divine or exclusive knowledge produces arrogance. Some atheists will claim that they know there is no God. This is a non-provable, non-testable scientific claim, and is therefore an arrogant thing to say. Some religionists claim that there is a God, which is also a non-provable, non-testable scientific claim, and is therefore is also an arrogant thing to say. Then there are the groups of people within both categories who do not “claim” to know something, but rather say they personally believe/do not believe something to be true. This is the more diplomatic approach… and everyone does have a right to their own opinions. Hopefully this paints the picture that the ratios between arrogant and non-arrogant people are the same in both categories. So then, why the stereotype?
I believe many religionists will often believe an atheist to be arrogant for ungrounded reasons, however. Religion is something people take very personally, and due to its theoretical nature, it is a very touchy subject when placed under a microscope. When people make a scientific claim, such as “There IS a god,” it is only natural for other people to question it. Since religionists have no empirical evidence to support their claims, they view all criticism as personal attacks. Because they automatically feel threatened, they wrongly label the criticizer arrogant. I think we all know that questioning a belief does not make a person arrogant, nor does the desire for others to question their own beliefs.
If anyone questions a scientist about his scientific theories, however, the scientist will simply answer to the best of his ability and accept criticism with open ears. This is because the objectives between the two groups of people are different. Religionists claim to already possess truth, which means there is very little reason to pursue it. Scientists do not claim this truth, and are always in pursuit of it.
And why do many atheists come across as angry? Well, if you're religious and reading this in an attempt to understand... imagine this: a world being dominated by a belief system you do not agree with or even believe is relevant to daily life, such as... everyone believes that it is virtuous to wear sneakers on Fridays. Politicians running for office will usually tack that onto their campaigns, in order to look more virtuous or "good" to the rest of their country... "I promise to lower taxes, pursue alternative energy methods, and yes... I do believe in wearing my sneakers on Friday." Can you see how irrelevant that is to being a good leader of a country? Yet the majority of people around you believe that to be a very important quality in a leader, and inherently view people who don't prioritize wearing their sneakers on Fridays as untrustworthy. After having something so obviously irrelevant force itself into all facets of life, it will wear on you, and the end result is that you'll probably have a pissed off reaction every time someone even mentions sneakers.
3 comments:
Its good that you have a clear emphasis with both sides of the question.
However, don't you feel the term "atheist" is not the best diction for the title you are describing. The definition of atheism is the complete rejection of a god, thus there is no god. To reiterate your point, it takes just as much faith to be an zealot atheist as to its religious counterpart.
Agnostic, I feel, may be a better lexical selection for what you have described.
Realistically, the most important role of religion in America serves as an easy cultural identification, politicians can summon in the name of god to call up their constituencies and display a bound of similarity.
Or a more amusing analogy that is similar to the role of religion: at a party, one person proceed to start talking to the next and say he is from Idaho. They other will respond: "OMG!Really!? Me too." Well, just replace the Idaho part with "Hey, I'm a catholic."
And just like any other badges of identification, anyone outside the cast will be alienated and antagonized. If I may be so bold to offer my personal view, I don't think there is a distinct problem with the conflicts between the religious and the not so. The problem is structural, and systematic, its the automatic, defensive rejection of differences and unfamiliarity within the American social sphere.
Firstly, atheism is not the rejection of god. That would imply there was something to reject. Atheism is the rejection of god as a plausible scientific claim.
Next, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "I am 99.99999999% sure that god does not exist. I cannot say for sure, because I don't know everything." You can be an atheist without claiming to KNOW that god does not exist. I simply don't believe he does, but I will never know for sure. An agnostic will simply say he/she does not know, and there is the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism. Agnostics don't know what to believe, and atheists simply don't believe.
I also feel that the personal conflict between the areligious and religious run deeper than you think. Blind faith is a trait that is not very commendable of a scientist... we wouldn't allow a doctor to inject us with "magic juice" just because he thought god told him to do it. We expect rational minds to think rationally, and those same rational minds frown at others who are incapable of it. Faith is a primitive instinct or inclination, and many religious doctrines moral teachings are stuck in primitive roots as well. Any modern individual would have naturally difficulty respecting something of that fiber.
In my experience, I've noticed people calling me arrogant because I display a lack of patience with certain arguments from religionists. If someone wants to have a serious discussion or debate, no problem. But if I hear the same old classic pseudo-arguments that have been conclusively refuted over and over again, I point this out, since I'm simply not willing to go into them anymore. This gets misconstrued as being arrogant and even "militant". Well, so be it. I don't care.
Post a Comment