Kate Cohen wrote the book after she came out as an atheist largely because she did not want to lie to her children. I found the book in the library after seeing her FFRF interview.
The book was somewhat annoying. First, she had this overheated philosophy about telling the truth. It includes basically telling the whole truth (except various times when, for various reasons, she did not).* She's the sort who won't tell her children there is a Santa Claus. When she is three.
People generally don't do that. They can be private about their beliefs. They don't have to provide a full-fledged version of them without being a liar.
And, as I said, she doesn't completely do it herself. She doesn't take the Sam Harris approach of thinking "you are fat" is healthy truth-telling.
I respect her philosophy of not lying to her children. So, when a pet died, she told them it was dead. There is a way to do this in child-sensitive ways. She bluntly told them that when we die, we die. And that there is no god. Still, at times, she laid it on a bit too thick.
One thing that annoyed me was when she didn't want her oldest son to have a bar mitzvah because the only reason he wanted to do it was to please his grandfather. The son said, "fine," but she had to tell the grandfather. He was annoyed, but it went okay.
What is wrong with him having the ceremony to please his grandfather? She argued it was a lie for him to do what many did -- say the usual religious stuff without really believing it. It can't just be for symbolic reasons. You say the words, but don't mean it; it's a lie.
She argued he was not an adult yet, so she had the responsibility to make his decisions. I think that took agency away from him. He was mature enough to decide for himself. And, if he didn't want to do it, he could have told his grandfather. She basically allowed him to not take responsibility for his choices.
"Religion" is not specifically defined, but is generally assumed to mean belief in God and the afterlife. On that level, Buddhism might be considered a religion even if a Buddhist doesn't believe in a god. After all, a Buddhist generally believes in reincarnation.
What about a Unitarian who does not believe in a god? Do they belong to a religion? She also argues that the Bible is not worthwhile since it is not true. Why can't it be useful like many types of fiction? Perhaps this specific work of historical fiction is bad?
She also spends time discussing alternatives to religion. These chapters get to be a bit tedious. A church or similar holy place is not a unique piece of architecture or meeting place. She even cites an NYC ethical society site, but notes it is rare.
It is not very hard to establish an atheist meeting place. It doesn't require the deep pockets of the Catholic Church to build a really nice location. Many nice secular places exist. Atheists don't just have to meet at the local coffeehouse or something.
Many non-religious holidays have special significance. You don't have to make up some pizza holiday or something to do so. Holidays like Christmas can also have special meaning for those who practice it without believing in Christ. There was a nice documentary about how Hanukkah became a special Jewish cultural holiday in the United States.
She makes it out like this is hard to do. She went to the lengths of creating a pizza-related holiday. She wanted to mark the maturity of her son by having him in charge of a dinner party. He wasn't interested, but it was a decent idea.
OTOH, so is a Jewish ritual with religious trappings that many (including the author at that age) don't think much about. She could not allow it since she is an atheist. The ceremony requires at least some token profession of faith. Which would be a lie.
I agree with her that those who can announce being an atheist with only a minimal burden should do so. Others will give up a lot, sometimes be in danger of physical harm, if they do so. The people with an easier time of it are the voice of all the rest.
I also agree that "agnostic" is sometimes a cop-out. On a technical level, there is a difference between not knowing something and not believing.
Often, however, "agnostic" is used as a hedge. Well, I just don't know. Maybe? It gives you an out. "Atheist" also appears to be strident and stereotypically so.
I don't like the word because of all that baggage. However, yes, there is no good evidence out there for a God, especially the sort of God most people want to believe in. They don't believe in Jefferson's deistic god. They don't believe in Zeus, which at least would be more realistic given the bad things out there.
I also don't like "freedom from religion" as if religion itself is the problem. Religion comes in many shades.
Religion can be a problem when subjective beliefs are established by law. Or faith over reason rules the day "because God said so." But that is not the only type of religion possible. It can even be seen as immoral.
Some people who belong to a religion are atheists. I think that is possible. The dictionary and technical definition of "religion" includes those people.
The book has some good parts. It is around two hundred pages, which is a good length for a book. It is overall quite readable. Still, it could have been shorter, and as I said, I found various parts overheated.
I think "God" might best be seen as a symbol. For instance, people sometimes lose faith in God when a loved one dies. This seems selfish or at least curious on some level. Many people suffer and die.
Why should your father's or child's death be any different? Obviously, it is special for you. But your belief in God has to take into consideration the problem of evil and the issue of suffering overall.
People often don't think things through that deeply. A child dies. A basic goodness is lost. That goodness was a basic aspect of god for you. So, you no longer believe in god. Or your belief suffers a major blow.
"God" as a singular person, as found in the Bible, doesn't make much sense to me. God as a concept, a metaphor, as poetry for what is good makes more sense. You can have ceremonies, prayers, and other religion-like things to honor that sort of "God."
Many people do honor such a thing, which they often treat as a separate force. That is an understandable human thing to do. Atheists sometimes ridicule "watering" down God in that fashion.
Still, it is how humans handle things. I think it is fine as long as we are honest about things. She is all about honesty. We are a nation geared to a biblical type of god, and that is often the sort refuted by atheists.
Check out the video. FFRF has some good programs. The television show is on hiatus, but they still have weekly radio shows, often with good guests.
The co-presidents met on Oprah back in the 1980s. The wife was always an atheist, starting FFRF with her mother. The husband is an ex-evangelist.
===
* The "do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" court declaration is a bit of a lie. People are instructed to not tell the whole truth. They are supposed to say the minimum necessary to answer the question. Not the "whole" truth. You can say certain things that imply something else. It is up to the lawyer to carefully draw you out.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!