What is a Fundamentalist Atheist?

I think the instinct—for lack of a better word—that draws people to act religiously can also affect people with no religion. While there may be no organised creed, there is organisation in a sort of tribal way. This may be in some way related to a …

This is based on a post which appeared on formspring.me/zbeauvais
I think the instinct—for lack of a better word—that draws people to act religiously can also affect people with no official religion. While there may be no organised creed, there is organisation in a sort of tribal way. This may be in some way related to a culture of the tribe. It’s the same thing that allows me to identify the tribes of midwestern Christians from America by their handshake, clothing, and sociolect. It’s the instinct that makes people buy into a group mentality like Apple fanboys, football supporters, and wine snobs.

I believe there to be a culture developing around Dawkins and Hitchens and others. There are events like Godless and books like An Atheist’s guide to Christmas which are somewhat organising, I suppose. Also, given the list of people who have contributed (among whom are many people I admire) I would be surprised if they don’t make compelling, interesting and probably very funny reading. But I think the compelling and funny part of the atheist culture is not part of being fundamentally against others’ beliefs, or against God or “a god”. I think the idea of “antitheism” is a far less compelling mindset. I don’t like the idea that one sets their belief and rhetoric as an antithesis.

A possibly relevant illustration would be to look at this in terms of other antithesis positions, like political rhetoric based entirely on the principle of “not being them.” It makes your position one relative to the existence, status, and nature of your opposition, which I think is at least silly and at most dangerous. If I were to consider myself to be an “antiTory,” then I am simply diametrically opposed to the ideas of a party over which I have forfeited any constructive influence. What then for instance, if they do something I agree with? Being convinced for yourself that there is no god is different from setting yourself against the whole notion as the basis of your beliefs.

I don’t think all people who disbelieve in God are “fundamentalist atheists.” I don’t equate a person’s belief and perspective with religiosity. What I do think is that people can religiously follow a group or concept. The word fundamentalist itself is difficult to work with. It’s something that is understood to be positive by people I wouldn’t always think of as fundamentally fundamentalist themselves. For some, the idea of being fundamental is to be true to an idea, and this is not a bad thing in itself. I can fundamentally believe it is best to to act selflessly, to edify others, and this would clearly not be negative.

But I think the word has been used commonly to refer to a kind of self-subsumation into the tribe, culture and ideology of a group. News reports of “fundamentalist terrorists,” which is probably unhelpful, but the word seems to convey a meaning that is useful sometimes, when talking about individuals who surrender their own perspectives to the tribe.

So, in a similar way to how I think of fundamentalist religious people, I would probably consider a “fundamentalist atheist” to be one who believes strongly that there is no god. One who believes that he is in a superior position for believing this way, and that those who believe otherwise are in some sense inferior (pagan, heathen, barbaric perhaps?). And, it would be a person for whom atheism fills a sociological need to belong to a tribe more than it fills the answer to a personal question about the meaning(s) of life.

I fully understand the desire to break free from religious thinking and teaching, and the need to feel unconstrained by a tribal group. I also understand the social desire to feel looked after, cherished and loved and affirmed by being part of something bigger than myself. These tensions are difficult to balance, and I think people find their own ways to do so. I think the balance shifting uncontrollably toward seeking the approval or support of a social group organised around a set of ideas (teaching, creed, reasoning, books and the rest) can only lead to a loss of one’s own, unique perspective. It’s a loss to the world.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on email

Related posts

photo of a stone cross

Setting aside Religion?

I was asked on Formspring.me: “Do you think it’s possible for a religious politician to put aside the teachings of their religious institution, and make

Read this one »

Regarding atheists…

No, I haven’t mistaken, though I do wish whoever you are had read my response in its entirety. I did not say that atheism *is* a religion, I said that atheists “can be religious themselves.”

I don’t really want to get into an impassioned, anonymous argument about atheism and deism. I feel the world confirms my rational belief in design and benign order. I believe that selfless love is a better way to live than pseudo-altruistic opportunity, and that God exists. I don’t call all atheists evil, nor do I think their belief system inferior to mine. I disagree with it, and I have experienced a God of Love greater than my own doubt (which is often the greatest thing in my own life).

I do, however, think that there is a religion of atheism. To me, religion is evident whenever people flock to an order (and hierarchy, perhaps) to be exclusive. They tend to disparage others. The implied insult—that I, as a believer in God am superstitious—in the question makes me wonder whether the questioner may have religious tendencies him/herself.

Read this one »

What thing or things can a religious person do that an atheist cannot?

I don’t know, sounds like a clinical trial might be in order?

I’m uncomfortable with the idea of religion, and that discomfort is growing into something akin to distrust.

I sort of see “religion” as a way to organise faith and belief into a structure. Traditionally, this structure has been a default in many cultures—because the organised belief and faith were heavily integrated into the social structures too. In the West, this tradition has become eroded. I don’t see this as bad in itself. It may prove to be hugely good, because it makes a person’s faith their own responsibility and maybe allows for a stronger connection with Love. Religion can get in the way of faith, and in the way of Love, especially if the structure of the religion is particularly authoritarian or the ideas closely controlled.

I do believe in a loving, creative God, and I follo the teachings of Jesus, but I’m uncomfortable with the structures and manifestations of “religion”. The way I see it, I think, is that if God is infinite and also benign (Loving), then those who want to Love, and those who question will ultimately find Love somehow. Religion might limit this questioning, and limit our own understanding of Love.

That’t not to say I don’t see truth in religious teaching, or that I am a complete non-traditionalist (my instinct is to embrace tradition, though my conscious thought is conflicted where I don’t see the truth in a tradition). Some traditions are good, or contain good or are useful or are beautiful. I think the ones which are narrative rather than proscriptive are most close to Love, at least for me.

So, I might surprise you by saying perhaps a religious person can hide behind an institutionalised version of the truth to justify not thinking for themselves?

Oh, I also think many athiests can be “religious” themselves, by the way. If the profound belief that nothing beyond their potential state of empirical knowledge becomes a structure, then it resembles nothing more than religious thought-laziness. So, be athiest, be religious, but don’t hide behind either. Be you, and I pray you find Love.

Read this one »