This very simplistic viewpoint on the subject often comes up. I call it simplistic because right now in the world we have religious people killing other religious people, not because they don't believe in god, but because they don't believe enough in god. Yet conversely, we have people who do believe in god working very closely with people who don't believe in god to build secular societies. If the current clash of cultures is a 'them' versus 'us' situation then this hostility between theists and friendship amongst theists and atheists just doesn't make any sense. I personally use a 6 category system to make sense of this confusing situation, although keep in mind some other people use 7, 8 and even more categories in their systems than I do.
I've arranged the 6 groups in the order of their relative belief in a god. However, don't think that the further apart the groups are the harder it is for them to understand each other. Quite to the contrary there are lots of surprising interactions between these 6 groups.
First, just a brief description, in my own words, of the 6 different categories:
Fundamentalist: God is as real as the computer you're reading this off. God communicates his message to people directly, in miracles or through infallible intermediaries. Anything that contradicts the holy texts is a lie. Science is dangerous.
Theist: God is real, but he doesn't necessarily speak to humans directly. He is concerned about morality and wants to limit our freedoms to keep us behaving properly to each other. Only religious people are able to interpret his will through accurate interpretation of holy works. Science is generally beneficial but sometimes scientists go too far with their questioning.
Deist: God is real, but considering how magnificent and huge the universe is it is kind of hard to believe he worries about things like our sex lives or what time we eat our meals. Holy texts about god are written by ordinary people and interpretted by ordinary people. They might contain some valuable insights into the nature of god but ultimately we're very limited in what we can comprehend so claiming certain knowledge about god and what he thinks is actually quite arrogant if not outright heresy. Science is ultimately the study of god since god created the universe therefore scientists cannot ask questions too daring to threaten god.
Pantheist: God is only real in the minds of those who believe in him. But just believing in god is enough to make him real and so we should respect that.
Atheist: There is no scientific evidence that god exists and believing in something without evidence is delusional. If evidence that god exists is presented and passes scientifically rigorous examination then our viewpoint will change to accept that god in fact exists. All religious people and texts should be treated with the utmost scrutiny lest we be decieved by charletons and liars. An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in god. An agnostic is a person who also lacks a belief in god. Therefore I categorise all agnostics as atheists automatically - even though they will probably get annoyed with me for doing so.
Antitheist: It is a fact, god does not exist. Anyone who says that god exists must by definition be suffering from a delusion.
I just feel like highlighting a few interesting interactions that tend to happen between these groups because they don't all pick sides against each other in predicable ways:
Fundamentalists versus atheists: Strangely, atheists often respect fundamentalists because although they do not agree with most of what they say they do appreciate that they are consistent with what they believe in. If they believe the bible is literally true then they will insist that the world was created in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. They won't try to say it was created in 6 days in one context and then try to say it happened over billions of years in another like theists often do.
Fundamentalist versus theists: very often conflict with each other because they see theists as religious in name only. Pretenders trying to cheat their way into heaven. Fundamentalists will sometimes say that theists aren't even religious at all and will specifically target them for suicide bombings and as the first to be thrown into the lake of eternal fire in the after life.
Theists versus deists: deists sometimes see theists as arrogant and intrusive in affairs, such as their sex life, that have nothing to do with god or spirituality. While theists see deists like the fundamentalists see them: not religious enough. However, generally speaking, deists and theists don't have any major issues with each other.
Theists versus atheists: theists often confuse atheists with antitheists.
Theists versus pantheists: surprisingly, theists also have a tendancy to confuse pantheists with deists.
Deists versus atheists: historically these two groups have always got along with each other. They after all created secularism together. Atheists tend to have a lot more respect for deists than theists. This is perhaps the most surprising interaction of all.
Pantheists versus atheists: pantheists very often don't like atheists (or antitheists for that matter). They find atheists to be rude, annoying and often consider them to be as fundamentalist about no god as fundamentalists are about god. While atheists often think pantheists are naive but harmless, yet curiously, although they are closer to atheists than deists they are very often respected less by atheists.
Atheists versus antitheists: Sit across the dinner table from each other and often agree on everything religious... yet sometimes there's that strange sense of awkwardness. I mean, isn't just a bit extreme to be certain god doesn't exists? What if the deists are right and he simply doesn't care or has completely forgotten about the Earth and moved onto bigger more challenging projects elsewhere billions of years ago? :)
I almost fit in to the Deist catgory you have described, but i disagree with the last sentence - God could not be threatened by questions of any sort. People feel threatened at questions because they are afraid that the wrong answer will make them look bad and lose respect from others (and thus lose power they have over others, if that's what they care about). God, on the other hand, is described as perfect and would not possess anything like the pride or fear humans have, so would not be threatened by the questions scientists ask about the world. If anything, God would be glad that people are so interested in the world he has created as to spend their lives seeking to understand the way it works.
ReplyDelete-Katherine :)
That's what I meant to say. :)
ReplyDeleteI've never met or heard of a deist that was anti-science or anti-questioning.
Hmm I think I'm close to a Deist also, though not being terribly familiar with any form of scripture really I'm always a little blurry about such claims. How I generally describe it is I don't believe there is some guy in a robe who created all, watches and intervenes but rather I do believe in the possibility of A creator. I also don't think the question has any effect on humanity what so ever. I feel the existence of science and order bring me to my stance and this is quite possibly due to the limits of my comprehension.
ReplyDeleteHa. Don't think I've ever tried to write that down before. The interactions are quite fascinating and make me think of many conversations I've been a part of.