An atheist defends religion
A committed Christian like Peter Hitchens might have had a difficult time trying to convince his atheist brother, the late Christopher Hitchens, of belief in a living God. Likewise, Christopher might have found it equally difficult to persuade Peter to repudiate God.
While fervent theists and militant atheists are light years apart, the mutual discussion about God, religion, and spirituality may warrant revisiting.
When an atheist values religion
If an atheist were to go on record as highlighting the value of religion, perhaps it would be wise for the rest of us to sit up and pay heed to what they say.
This is precisely what one well-known atheist has done.
Bruce Sheiman, in his book, An Atheist Defends Religion, takes the position that humanity is better off with religion than without it. He explains that the most rational argument for dismissing atheism is found, not in the endless debate about the existence of God, but in the enduring value of religion as a cultural phenomenon.
“And this,” he suggests, “is a debate that religion can win.”
I recently reread this book, which was published in 2009, with an eye to reminding myself why I found it so appealing in the first place.
To his credit, Sheiman is candid and forthright about what he believes and does not believe.
“I must disclose that I am not a person of faith,” he writes. Nor does he feel God’s majesty and mystery. He accepts that his “here-and-now existence is all there is.” He did not “rationally or deliberately” choose the option of atheism. “It’s just something that I am.”
At the same time, he says that he does not “stridently repudiate God. Indeed,” he adds, “there is a part of me that wants to believe in God.” That makes him a self-described “obstinate atheist” and “aspiring theist.”
He wants “to believe that our universal spiritual longing for wholeness and perfection is suggestive of the divine.” He craves to affirm that finite beings reach for “an ineffable and unfathomable Absolute...because we are Imago Dei,” that our Truth, by which he means wisdom and fulfillment, finds “its Omega Point in God.”
In other words, though he insists that he cannot believe in God, Sheiman still feels the need for God. His burden is to show that, “on balance, religion provides a combination of psychological, emotional, moral, communal, existential, and even physical-health benefits that no other institutions can replicate.”
Religion serves the utilitarian purpose of providing “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” In economic terms, “religion provides net-positive benefits that no other institution can come close to matching.” Why, Sheiman wonders, is religion “so enthralling, enriching, enlightening, empowering, and enrapturing”?
His approach is radically different from books written by other atheists, especially in recent years. Witness, for example, Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (2006), which has often been criticized because of its militancy. Other examples are Sam Harris’ The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (2004), Daniel C. Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006), and Christopher Hitchens’ god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007).
The functions of religion
Sheiman devotes individual chapters to the various functions of religion.
First, religion is finding the meaning of life, linking us to the transcendent dimensions that make up our lives–humanity, nature and the universe. He highlights “the connection to something larger than ourselves–finding purpose in a framework that is broader than our daily lives.” Truth, with an uppercase “T,” gives “a deep and fulfilling sense of my integral place in the universe I call home.”
Second, religion is caring for humanity. “An integral part of religion pertains to morality,” by which he means “how we interact with our fellow human beings and, increasingly, with all of nature.” Every human endeavour seeks Absolute Value, but attempts to avoid relativism.
Two concomitant questions follow: “Does religion make people good?” and “Can people be moral without religion?” The answer to both is a resounding Yes! In Sheiman’s words, “religion remains the primary model for morality.” Still, he wonders if the moral capacity of atheists is ever fully actualized.
Third, religion is union with the divine. Religious traditions the world over “express the universal human concern with Absolute Value.” If there can be a “pure genius of religion,” it is, Sheiman asserts, “to convince ourselves that the finite and perishable world we inhabit is not the real world and that the more real world awaits us after a transition to a more hallowed state.” The object of religion is to free humanity from bondage “and unite with the Ultimate Reality from which he originated.”
Fourth, religion is deepening the soul. Researchers posit that, as discomfiting as it may be to atheists, religious participation “and improved mental health, extended longevity, and even enhanced social health,” go hand in hand. Empirical research and statistical averages indicate nothing less.
Finally, religion is a force for progress, including human rights, science and universal ethics. The most likely proposition about how history would have proceeded without religion, Sheiman avers, “is that we arrived at this historical juncture in large part because of religion, not in spite of religion.” Religion, which the author regards as “the greatest force for good in the world,” is more transformative than reactionary.
Asking and responding to the tough questions
Sheiman does not shy away from thorny issues, one of which is the oft-made claim that religion is the foremost source of the world’s violence.
By way of response, he posits three realities: most religious organizations do not foster violence, many nonreligious groups do engage in violence, and many religious moral precepts encourage nonviolence. As he puts it, “the biggest of religion’s alleged liabilities–wars and violence–are not fully a function of religion, but result from the politicization of religion.”
He concludes:
“We are members of a universe of ceaseless creativity in which life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness and the richness of human experience have a place. Maybe we are special after all, but not in the way religion intended. Even without God, I think it is possible to understand the universe in a way that acknowledges human existence, and, by extension, our own existence.” In short, “religious experience is the essential human experience.”
Admittedly, Christianity is not so much about religion as a cultural institution as about spiritual transformation. Listen to how Jesus explains his mission: “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10, NASB).
“A man is lost,” William Barclay comments, “when he has wandered away from God; and he is found when once again he takes his rightful place as an obedient child in the household and the family of his Father.”
Giving a hearing
So, why should Evangelicals give Sheiman a hearing?
For one, he reiterates, from an atheistic standpoint, a conclusion sociologists of religion have been declaring for years: religion helps people live more fulfilling lives, while its benefits to society are incalculable.
Beyond that, he issues a tacit challenge to those on both sides of the divide: make every effort to understand your own belief system, and determine to be more patient with and understanding of those who disagree with you, for mutual respect fosters effective dialogue. This is my take-away from An Atheist Defends Religion.
Dear Readers:
ChristianWeek relies on your generous support. please take a minute and donate to help give voice to stories that inform, encourage and inspire.
Donations of $20 or more will receive a charitable receipt.Thank you, from Christianweek.
About the author