Why do atheists believe in heaven?
All faith groups have sects to be ashamed of, the ones who want to string up gays, stone women taken in adultery, that sort of nonsense. Let’s not get into one of those complacent debates about how it could be that faiths based in love can spawn such hatred. We might, though, consider drawing the line against outlawing fundamentalists by using anti-terrorism laws. Did you see that the edict issued by free speech-loving Mr Johnson against Islam4UK extends to a proscription against insignia and clothes. Clothes??!! Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nutter.
Rectitude breeds contempt, that we can say. But in one faith group it breeds anger to an intriguing degree. Atheists. The Dawkinistas.Terrifically cross lot. No one is safe from their yelling, even old maids cycling to church through the morning mist. Is there something essentially silly about preaching a negative, getting all hot under the collar about Nothing? I don’t have a view on this myself. I am a bystander, merely; a quizzical commentator.
Anyone who believes anything has problems with the doctrine. Those who don’t are the ones to watch. How many atheists fervently believe in Nothing? Not that many when the chips come down to it. When you shine the interrogator’s light into the eyes of their faith you’ll more often than not elicit this anomaly: “I don’t believe in god...but I do believe in heaven.” This is the point when my friend Richard, an exuberantly faulty Catholic, quotes Chesterton: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything."
This is a problem for humanist funeral celebrants – an acute embarrassment. Members of their flock are always wanting to sing from a hymn sheet and lift their eyes to a hereafter. It’s not so much an aspiration as a supposition. Belief in a heaven of some sort seems to be ineradicable from the mind of humankind, a heaven which needs no whitebeard concierge.
Lifestyle gurus are always telling us to live in the present. Ever tried it? People with a death sentence can do it, and some meditators, perhaps, but most of us are too busy using the present to assess our past or plan our future. In our heads, the future is where most of us do most of our living. We defer a lot of pleasure in the sure and certain hope of that future. This is why we have pension plans. And this is why the death of a young person is so much more painful to us than the death of a very old person: the young person has been denied so much more future.
Even a completely clapped out body cannot rid most of us of the habit of living in the future. Sure, we can at this stage easily see that an earthly future is out of the question. That’s when our minds leap lightly into the hereafter. And that’s why atheists believe in heaven.
Labels: Humanists
posted by Charles Cowling at
11:43
8 Comments:
Good post Charles.
I feel that the Humanists need to grapple seriously with this issue. Too often they can sound like a stage manager gleefully announcing the no-show of the headline act. The religious impulse is a strong one, we just need to create a religion without god that reframes it. Faith hope and love are not the preserve of the religious.
As for Alan Johnson, he is staring to make Michael Howard look like Ghandi. Out of control.
And the correct term for Dawkins etc, as I learnt on t'internet is Antitheist. Does exactly what it says on the tin.
Goof blog Charles! Atheists are just as zealous about preaching spiritual nihilism as theists are about being God's witness. It's interesting to hear that the followers of the religion of anti-religion expect, or hope for, heaven, even without God. Even Dawkins describes himself as a "cultural Christian", I suppose in recognition of the fact that law-abiding, ethical humanists would be where they are without the civilising influence of Christendom. Pax vobiscum!
Rupert, a religion without God? How about the philosophy of Bhuddism?
Good point Anon, Bhuddism does tick that box. But is it a religion? There are plenty of philosophies that are without God
I still fondly remember the reaction of one undertaker when I told him I wasn't describing my funeral ceremonies as 'humanist' any more, because I was fed up with being mistaken for a Humanist. He replied: "What gets up my nose about that lot is, how long can you go on being interesting talking about something that doesn't exist?"
Great quote, Jonathan!
Well, I'll put my tuppence worth in.
I am a humanist and an atheist. I don't believe in heaven or an afterlife - I'm one of the "when you're gone, you're gone", crowd.
When it comes to bereavement, I completely understand the comfort that people gain from feeling that their loved ones are watching over them, or nearby, or still around in whichever way they believe.
When it comes to funerals, and humanist funerals in particular, then I try to concentrate on the life lived, which people knew and remembered, rather than about an afterlife that people are making their own assumptions about.
Yes, I know that we all see each other differently, but at least contradictory memories of a life are real experiences to those doing the remembering.
I also understand that those assumptions about an afterlife are deeply held beliefs. That's also fine, and for people who hold those beliefs, there are ministers and celebrants far better than I to give them the right funeral.
As for Dawkins? I don't find him helpful.
I'm reminded of an old Kenny Everett quote (in his case about homosexuality), which paraphrased is "spending your time shouting "I'm normal" doesn't encourage other people to think that you're normal".
Spending a lot of time shouting "there is no god" is not going to make believers change their mind. All that spending time shouting will do is annoy people, and cause confrontation that need not exist.
Most of us (humanists/atheists/securlarists) are just trying to live an ethical life and will only bring up the subject of faith when asked. It's the loud ones who give us a bad name.
Rambling rant over.
xx
Dear Rambling Rant,
I'm not a vegetarian; it's just that you eat meat.
If I have a fag, why do you have to be labelled a non-smoker?
If you believe in God, why the hell do I have to be an atheist??
I could go on, but I'll spare you.
Hi Jonathan.
Personally, I don't want to label you as anything.
Labels can be a useful shorthand, but are very limiting - the label "Muslim" has just popped into my head - and we all know how widely that word can be used!
I labelled myself at the beginning of my post to "set out my stall", but really, these things don't matter. Surely people can be whatever they want to be, as long as it doesn't harm others?
It's up to individuals to make sure that their own personal integrity isn't breached, and if this is why you've changed how you described your ceremonies, then that's understandable (by the way, I wasn't being sarcastic, when I said "Great quote" - it did make me laugh).
This is why I think that people like Dawkins haven't helped. It's as though all people who don't believe in god have suddenly become "angry atheists" who feel the need to bash believers. This misrepresents a lot of people.
At the risk of sounding like an old hippy, shall we all just work/hope/pray for a bit of peace, love and understanding?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home