A Disstatement Of Belief

Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.
- H.L. Mencken

Firstly, I wanted to quote that because it is a most excellent quote. Secondly, because it's pure idiocy and totally meaningless. I don't pretend to understand a lot of things, and while I may not have any belief in deities whatsoever, it is only the arrogant and ignorant who think that something is not worth knowing. Everything is worth knowing.

To go on from that, I should point out that I am indeed an atheist. I didn't think this was a huge deal; the UK is a very secularised nation and it is not an uncommon view.

However, in current political climate, with governments charging ahead with faith schools, campaigning for the teaching of intelligent design in schools and so on, a large debate has centered on it. Columnists claim to represent the atheist point of view and how this is an outrage.

Which to me seems contradictory. Atheism is not a statement of belief; it is a rejection of belief. There is no common thesis uniting these individuals. For one to claim to speak for another is arrogant; what is even more laughable is the categorisation of all atheists as one in return. This is illogical.

To draw a parallel, let me think of religions as football clubs. Now, various people will support their own football club, to a greater or lesser extent. Some will just check the results in the paper, others will only have it as a statement of association. Others will be committed fans who go to cames every week. Some will decide that the best way to show their loyalty to their club is to go and beat up supporters of other clubs. This is actually a far better analogy than I thought when I started this comment.

In this metaphor, the atheists are those who may like football, but do not follow a team through choice. In some cases they may dislike football and therefore not follow any team. Regardless, their only common ground is that they have a common lack of commitment to a cause, in this case supporting a specific team. You do not have this collective lack-of-identity drawn up for football clubs. Why is it so in religion, when the unifying factor is a negative that affirms no beliefs, no common way those lack of beliefs should be taken, or anything more than a simple perspective on religion. It would like be saying all those who are religious represent the same viewpoint.

What I find even more curious is that far from being viewed as this, atheists are viewed as a threat. This linked article is a study by an American university into acceptance of minority views. I was absolutely staggered by the results upon seeing this survey. You should really read it to get the full potential, because summarising it will not do it justice.

This got me wondering in turn - why is atheism viewed as a threat? In modern society, where far from what could once have been an inevitable decline, religion has come to the forefront of debate. In this position, atheists are an acceptable target for religions to assert themselves on. But why? A resentment of change? A defensive attitude to belief?

I don't have an answer to this question. But I wanted to ask it. It is feasible to challenge atheism as an individual position. But to challenge it as a widespread, cohesive movement? It strikes almost as a paranoia of an army of secularist atheists, working together to tear down religions.

Why is it that religions demand in turn respect and tolerance of belief, yet at the same time attack atheism as an untenable position? Why are religions so convinced that those who are eternally damned, in their beliefs, are a threat to them and their movements? Why is there a need to build up lone individuals into a non-existent collective movement?