There is a current concept coined “Atheism 2.0,” presented via a popular “talk” forum. This concept is rooted in the traditional atheistic beliefs, that there is no God or gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc., but builds atop that foundation the idea that religions nonetheless have invaluable things to contribute to society, such as their practices and procedures, that the secular world should take advantage of. The revolutionary action that Atheism 2.0 hopes to propagate is to “steal from religions,” taking forms of spirituality, morality, ritualism, community, sermonizing, etc. from the religious world and inserting it into the secular culture for the benefit of non-believers.
Atheism 2.0 is ideally for the type of person that “hates doctrine, but loves Christmas carols;” the person who doesn’t want to submit to dogmas, but “likes flipping through the pages of the Old Testament.” It is tailored for the person who seeks to be “spiritual but not religious;” those people who recognize there desire for something that is a bit more holistic than strict naturalism, but who think that religion just doesn’t quite have it right. The idea hopes to gain a few specific benefits from religion in the areas of education and culture, among other things. While the presentation of this new philosophy of life was full of true statements, when all the pieces of the message are taken as a whole, it falls short of the mediator’s goal by the weight of his own inconsistency.
One of the premises for the argument for Atheism 2.0 is that there is a false dichotomy between doctrine and “wrong living.” The speaker is operating from an assumption that many people believe that one must choose “right living,” i.e. being moral, kind, thoughtful, productive, communal, etc., via religion, or choose to be an atheist. The idea proposed is that the doctrines of many religions encourage “right living,” so the supposed consequence of not choosing a set dogmas is to miss out on this type of good life. Atheism 2.0 wants to do away with this “dichotomy” (a false one at that) by stealing the good benefits of religion that stem from those dreadful dogmas, and implement them for the benefit of our secularized world.
This “Reformer” (if one would so like to call him) of Atheism, is modest in his approach and genuine in his desires, but he is gravely mistaken in his understanding of the way humanity communes together in social atmospheres. He argued that one could choose to embrace the benefits of religions while putting the dogmas at the wayside. His hope is to gather together a people united by moral living and mutual respect that isn’t cleft over doctrinal divides, not led by a single individual or group, and yet maintains a general direction of purpose. This, however, fails to recognize one major historical fact that stands in practical opposition to this idea, and creates a second insurmountable barrier that would never allow such a culture to exist. First, there is little to no historical evidence of groups or organizations coming together for the common benefit of people without a communal bond over at least basic beliefs that must be held. Secondly, the moment one desires a culture to borrow the benefits of religion, that group is automatically constrained by the benefits it longs to see come to fruition, which forces common belief in something and coming action in order to achieve that common goal, something antithetical to the very desires of our anarchical atheist.
Let’s consider some of the basic historical benefits of a few different historical religions. For one example, Christianity has produced schools and hospitals throughout the ages for the benefit of the peoples in that locale. Health and Education are, the speaker thinks, unquestionably beneficial to the culture at large. So, according to the argument, this would be a beneficial practice to take from the Church and to implement in secular society. The issue, though, is that what motivated the Church was not first and foremost a concern with the benefit of society. They were, in general, more concerned about faithfulness to Christ. The early church father, Athanasius, once wrote “Let them know that the Lord came not to make a display, but to heal and teach those who were suffering. For the way for one aiming at display would be, just to appear, and to dazzle the beholders; but for one seeking to heal and teach The Way is, not simply to sojourn here, but to give himself to the aid of those in want…” The church was not simply making a display among the culture, they were seeking to imitate Christ because of what they believed about Him.
One must remember that the Christian Church was founded not upon political or economic success, but upon 300 years of radical suffering, persecution, and death where house churches, apprenticeships, and small communities of believers served as havens for the poor and needy, and as places for people to learn from those who had gone before them. They were united by their convictions, and willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of what they believed. Without conviction level beliefs that were held as more valuable than life itself, the Church could never have begun, and could never have found it’s success to produce the more wide-reaching effects of large hospitals and schools. Their original intent was never to simply improve the culture, but to be obedient to Christ according to what they believed, and to offer any other view on the early church is a great misunderstanding of who the early church was.
Secondly, Yoga, a popular health movement, and to some extent a contemporary spiritual movement, testifies against the ideologies of Atheism 2.0 as well. If one follows any of the yoga traditions, such and Hatha and Yantra Yoga, which have developed more or less into our modern form of Zen Yoga, they will see that they are rooted in “doctrinal” beliefs that united a people into holding a practice near and dear to their life. Some of these beliefs consist of, but are not limited to, the likes of “Kensho,” or insight into one’s true nature, and the ability for individuals to attain “Buddhahood.” Yoga is linked extensively to Zen Buddhism, which carries many doctrinal beliefs. Even at the most basic, non-religious level of this practice, the modern practitioners are united by a belief that it will bring bodily health and maybe more inner peace, etc. The practitioners are united under a banner of common beliefs, resulting in common action, and producing a common goal, that are rooted in a historical tradition.
This relates to the second issue produced by Atheism 2.0’s ideology. This atheistic remonstrant desires to have a people working together for this cause without an authoritative structure. He desires more of a self-policed style of cultural thought. He hopes that each person will choose their particular religious stolen goods for their benefit, and that they will mesh together for the benefit of people as a whole. A noble goal, but it is flawed to the core. Atheism 2.0 is the epitome of relativism taking root in our post-modern confusion. If you’re focus is cultural uplifting by stealing and secularizing religious preferences that individuals choose without guidance or much discernment, the result will be at best completely benign, or otherwise another instigator of division over the “best practices” the surrounding culture should embrace.
The disputes that would be generated would be no different than the religious doctrinal arguments that already happen. The majority of people pulled back from Rousseau’s idea that humans are intrinsically good after witnessing the destruction of two World Wars, so it is not unreasonable to believe that tasteful preferences of religious practices would eventually play the strings of the human heart in the same way that dogmatically held beliefs currently do, ultimately leading to the dissension of groups, and, in the worst of cases, to the harm of others that we already see.
Our solution to the problems we face is not to relativize our thoughts and beliefs and try to fit them together, expecting a coherent picture to form. No one expects a picture to come about by taking a handful of puzzle pieces from a hundred different puzzles and trying to put them together. The pieces won’t fit. The picture won’t be coherent. The spiritual doctrines of Buddhism that led to the culturally beneficial health habits of yoga don’t square with the racial superiority beliefs of 20th century Nazism, yet both brought about massive movements because, at some point or another, enough people thought the results desirable and worth supporting. Without a transcendent measuring rod that goes above any one religious or political belief system, one cannot argue with the Nazi and say their beliefs are unhelpful to society, and that they should approach their beliefs with a more friendly or tolerant mindset.
To solve the issues the speaker is seeking to address, to actually benefit culture, we all must stop trying to make reality curb to our personal desires by choosing the ideas that we prefer, and rather curb our personal desires to the reality around us. Our goal must not be to mesh together an impossible web of religions and ideas, but rather to seek that which most accurately describes the reality we find ourselves living in. This will force us to begin accepting and rejecting certain ideologies as more or less True and as more or less beneficial. It forces us to recognize that the belief of racial superiority that led to slavery and the Holocaust is not a beneficial belief, while the belief that all humans have innate value is a beneficial belief. Once we begin to recognize some of these Truths, it is our responsibility to protect those truths, and to follow those truths where they lead, delving deeper and deeper into what proves to be most Real, most Accurate, most Beneficial, and most True for all people; and Truth is not determined by preferences.
by grace for glory 