One of the most common complaints I hear against atheists is that they are "arrogant" for saying that there is no god or gods. How dare atheists presume to know that there is no god, when there's no way for humans to truly know whether god exists? Yet, believers never call themselves arrogant for presuming to believe that there is a god.
This is one of those classic anti-atheist arguments that honestly puzzles me. Certainly both theists and atheists are capable of behaving arrogantly. But how is simply not believing something considered to be arrogant?
I know some people hate to bring the dictionary into these discussions, but I think clearly defining terms is an important part of any communication. So here's a basic definition of arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.
Often religious people claim that atheists are arrogant because they think they are "better than god." This is based on atheists saying that they don't need a belief of god to be good, moral and valuable people. To those who believe in god, people saying that they do not need their "creator" is seen as an offensive display of superiority or self-importance. Yet how can atheists be superior to something that they don't believe exists?
Atheists are also called arrogant for stating that they "know" god does not exist. There are two problems with this argument.
Either Sally or Joe could certainly behave arrogantly when discussing the matter if they chose to do so. But does Sally's belief in visiting aliens, or Joe's lack of belief in the same, inherently make either of them arrogant? Aren't they each entitled to have their own thoughts on the subject?
What if Sally isn't content to simply believe that aliens exist? Perhaps she decides to tell others about her beliefs and the alleged proof that she has gathered. She has weekly meetings with other believers, takes a shift watching the sky at an observatory, starts a website, writes a book and goes on talk shows to promote her beliefs.
Is that arrogance? No. Sally is simply sharing her belief with others and letting them use that information to form their own opinions.
Now, Sally takes it a step further. She decides that everyone else must believe what she does about alien visitors. She tells non-believers that the aliens are watching, and that anyone who does not believe in them will be tortured when the aliens take over Earth. She seeks government funding for her efforts in spreading the "truth," attempts to create laws that favor those who share her beliefs, and lobbies to have public schools teach kids about alien visitors.
Could Sally's actions be considered arrogant now? Yes, I would say that attempting to force her beliefs on others, and saying that people will be tortured if they don't believe like she does, constitutes an offensive display of superiority or self-importance.
What is Joe doing through all this? When Joe first hears about Sally's ideas, he might not think much of them, or he might be curious. He might even read her book, listen to her talk show interviews, and look over her alleged proof, yet none of it resonates with him. He sees reasons other than aliens behind Sally's proof, and simply isn't compelled to believe.
Is that arrogance? No. Joe is under no obligation to believe anything just because Sally believes it.
When Sally publicly shares her beliefs, there is nothing arrogant about Joe speaking up about why he does not believe her message. They are each entitled to share their thoughts on the subject.
The sticky point comes when Sally arrogantly tries to force others to agree with her beliefs. This is not just a problem for Joe and the others who do not believe. You see, Sally believes in very specific little gray aliens. There are other groups who believe in all kinds of other types of alien visitors.
When Sally tries to assert that the little gray aliens are the only truth, she tramples the beliefs of many other people. All of those other people have a right to defend their beliefs. Joe also has a right to defend the fact that he doesn't believe that any aliens have visited our planet.
Is it arrogance to stand up and say that people shouldn't be forced to share the same beliefs? Is it arrogance to say that the basis of our governing laws should lie in facts and truths that are backed up by hard evidence and not in the beliefs of a certain group? Apparently it is, but only if you're an atheist.
This is one of those classic anti-atheist arguments that honestly puzzles me. Certainly both theists and atheists are capable of behaving arrogantly. But how is simply not believing something considered to be arrogant?
I know some people hate to bring the dictionary into these discussions, but I think clearly defining terms is an important part of any communication. So here's a basic definition of arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.
Often religious people claim that atheists are arrogant because they think they are "better than god." This is based on atheists saying that they don't need a belief of god to be good, moral and valuable people. To those who believe in god, people saying that they do not need their "creator" is seen as an offensive display of superiority or self-importance. Yet how can atheists be superior to something that they don't believe exists?
Atheists are also called arrogant for stating that they "know" god does not exist. There are two problems with this argument.
1. If atheists are arrogant for not believing in god when there is no way to prove god's existence, then theists would also be arrogant for believing in god when there is no way to prove god's existence.
2. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Most atheists look at the evidence presented by those who do believe in god and simply don't find it compelling enough to join in their belief.Let's look at a similar example: Sally believes that extraterrestrial aliens have secretly visited our planet. Joe does not. There is currently not enough evidence to definitively prove the matter.
Either Sally or Joe could certainly behave arrogantly when discussing the matter if they chose to do so. But does Sally's belief in visiting aliens, or Joe's lack of belief in the same, inherently make either of them arrogant? Aren't they each entitled to have their own thoughts on the subject?
What if Sally isn't content to simply believe that aliens exist? Perhaps she decides to tell others about her beliefs and the alleged proof that she has gathered. She has weekly meetings with other believers, takes a shift watching the sky at an observatory, starts a website, writes a book and goes on talk shows to promote her beliefs.
Is that arrogance? No. Sally is simply sharing her belief with others and letting them use that information to form their own opinions.
Now, Sally takes it a step further. She decides that everyone else must believe what she does about alien visitors. She tells non-believers that the aliens are watching, and that anyone who does not believe in them will be tortured when the aliens take over Earth. She seeks government funding for her efforts in spreading the "truth," attempts to create laws that favor those who share her beliefs, and lobbies to have public schools teach kids about alien visitors.
Could Sally's actions be considered arrogant now? Yes, I would say that attempting to force her beliefs on others, and saying that people will be tortured if they don't believe like she does, constitutes an offensive display of superiority or self-importance.
What is Joe doing through all this? When Joe first hears about Sally's ideas, he might not think much of them, or he might be curious. He might even read her book, listen to her talk show interviews, and look over her alleged proof, yet none of it resonates with him. He sees reasons other than aliens behind Sally's proof, and simply isn't compelled to believe.
Is that arrogance? No. Joe is under no obligation to believe anything just because Sally believes it.
When Sally publicly shares her beliefs, there is nothing arrogant about Joe speaking up about why he does not believe her message. They are each entitled to share their thoughts on the subject.
The sticky point comes when Sally arrogantly tries to force others to agree with her beliefs. This is not just a problem for Joe and the others who do not believe. You see, Sally believes in very specific little gray aliens. There are other groups who believe in all kinds of other types of alien visitors.
When Sally tries to assert that the little gray aliens are the only truth, she tramples the beliefs of many other people. All of those other people have a right to defend their beliefs. Joe also has a right to defend the fact that he doesn't believe that any aliens have visited our planet.
Is it arrogance to stand up and say that people shouldn't be forced to share the same beliefs? Is it arrogance to say that the basis of our governing laws should lie in facts and truths that are backed up by hard evidence and not in the beliefs of a certain group? Apparently it is, but only if you're an atheist.
No comments:
Post a Comment