When someone takes a stand, it’s simple to accuse of her of being defensive in order to undermine her views. It’s also easy to blame the problems of people in an oppressed group on themselves, to avoid inquiring into the source of any poor behavior on their part.

I would be the last to claim that any nontheists I know are saints. However, if you care to read other writings posted on this site, I think you will find few of the flaws you describe above.

From the sound of it, you have felt offended by nontheistic folks quite a bit. I regret that has happened to you.

You clearly have given a lot of thought to relations between theistic and nontheistic people. What makes you so interested?

Yours,
Robin

It seems that you are a tad defensive about your nontheism. Perhaps the reason that nontheists, atheists, secular humanists, etc attract poor treatment (if that is indeed the case) is that they do not just claim to disbelieve in a discrete Divinity that others refer to as God or Allah or Brahman but usually they take the additional step of promoting themselves to the position just vacated by God as they argue for the supremacy of reason, logic and science.

As I have said before there few, if any religionists, other than fundamentalists, who actually do believe in a discrete God, so there should be no poor treatment directed at those who claim that there is no discrete God by the majority of religionists because they would agree with that proposition.

But nontheist usually do not stop with the simple assertion that there is no discrete God. They often go on to ridicule the views of those who do believe in a discrete God by comparing that belief to a belief in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or any of a long list of fictional characters. Of course, these nontheists do not understand that the fictional characters cited are symbols of human love in specific circumstances.

Not content with engaging those who believe in a discrete Divinity, nontheists are also prone to targeting theists who have a more cosmic viewpoint of Divinity by claiming that a cosmic Divinity is merely a placeholder for the unknown and that when science, i.e. the intellect, reason and logic of the nontheists have succeeded in ferreting out all the secrets of the universe, then there will be no need for a belief in any kind of Divinity, discrete or cosmic.

This confrontational and dismissive nature of most nontheists is what attracts the ‘poor treatment’ that you mention. Granted that poor treatment is not acceptable, but it is understandable. Moreover, to complain about poor treatment is often an excuse by nontheists to avoid responsibility for their own less than gracious behaviour as outlined above.

Granted some theists will attack the beliefs of nontheists because the nontheist view threatens their own, crude level of spiritual understanding but these types of attacks are probably in the minority and are easily dismissed as grounded in fear and insecurity. And yes, some nontheists will attacke the beliefs of theists also from fear and insecurity but the majority of nontheist pronouncements seems to be grounded in egoism with a prideful attachment to their ability to think and reason.

Let’s look at this nontheist attachment to intellect, reason and logic a bit more. First, most of the nontheist arguments that I have encountered are sadly lacking in both reason and logic and are easily defeated logically by any first year undergraduate. The nontheist arguments definitely lack any logical rigour and are more often just their biases set out in what is taken by them to be logical form. In short, nontheists who espouse reason and logic are either loath or unable to apply that reason and logic to their own views.

Second, such nontheists forget that there are other learning styles besides the linearity or logic and other world views besides logical positivism, behaviourism or even cognitivism. These nontheists are not capable of understanding the validity of alternative world views such as constructionism, design based research methods, or the Gaia hypothesis. They do not or cannot recognize the validity of other non-verbal, non linear learning styles such as kinesthetic, which is the dominant learning style involved with Hatha Yoga or the auditory learning style for which we are grateful to such figures as Beethoven and Bach for developing to such a high degree.

Third, the logic and reason so beloved by nontheists is not, by its very nature, capable of knowing or presenting That which is beyond nature and beyond space and time. Logic and reason are dependent upon a world view that sees a universe of separate objects all in competition with one another for survival and ease. This viewpoint is further overlain by the imposition of linearity of their concept of time. Science is doomed to forever recognizing relationships between separate objects even though those separate objects are not separate at all. It is a bit like continually rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic without once recognizing the unseaworthiness of the vessel in which one sails, i.e. nontheism, atheism, or secular humanism.

Fourth, reason and logic are dependent upon the five senses which as we know have very narrow thresholds and exclude much of the universe from their consideration. Also, these senses are subject to failure. Think of colour blindness or hearing loss as just two examples.

There is a case for reason and logic but not one that can take a person to God. Reason and logic can, if used properly and rigorously take one to the threshold of spiritual enlightenment but it cannot take one over the threshold into nospace, notime, and interconnection, the home of God. In Hinduism, for example, there is a spiritual path known as Jnana Yoga. This is an intellectual path and consists largely of using reason and logic to eliminate from consideration that which is not God. This process is referred to ‘Neti. Neti.’ or ‘Not this. Not that.’ At the same time that one is practicing Jnana Yoga, one is also making the consciousness more and more subtle, in other words, developing and expanding one’s intuitive faculties. It is these intuitive facultes that, in the end, will take one over the threshold of spiritual enlightenment to know God directly.

It is interesting to note, that the ‘discoveries’ in the outer reaches of theoretical physics, the quantum world, have always confirmed the pronouncements in the world’s scriptures and have never found conflict in them. This quantum world is intuition at work.

Finally, nontheism in full flower without fear or ego is exactly the same as the most profound depths of all authentic religions. Quantum science is practical mysticism, and only one of many paths to the top of the mountain.

I especially liked the “icebreakers.” Fabulous! I think I will use them if I ever offer another nontheism workshop.

Warmly,
Anita

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. To an extent, I agree with you that some of the conversation is about semantics. The way you frame your observation seems to me to come from estrangement and confrontation, and I feel treated in a way that is unspiritual and unholy. However, that may just be an artifact of the written word and our not knowing one another. I trust you have written in the intention of laboring together in love, and I’m glad to do so.

I’m not sure you took the time to read the report. There was no debate about whose views are correct. We did try to share honestly and compassionately with one another. To the best of my knowledge, we all, theists and nontheists alike, parted friends.

The reason we hold these workshops is that, although some of the differences between nontheists and theists may be purely semantic, people don’t always behave as if they are. So nontheistic Friends have received behavior ranging from having their views disrespected, to being refused membership, to being accused of spiritual parasitism, to being isolated or even disowned. The workshop is an opportunity to work through some of these issues.

Much of the poor treatment of nontheistic Friends stems from false assumptions made by others. When we gather to talk about our different theologies, we’ve found we usually come away with greater respect and appreciation for each other. To me, Peter, your comment reflects an automatic assumption that nontheistic Friends must be out to tear apart the Religious Society of Friends. In the decade I’ve been in dialogue with nontheistic Quakers, it has almost always been apparent that they regarded themselves first as Quaker, and secondarily as nontheists. They have attended the workshop not to drive a wedge into our Society, but to learn how they can be more fully a part of it.

In friendship,
Robin Alpern

This comment shows that all the debate about which of the views of theists or non-theists is correct is just so much artificial blather and amounts to an idle exercise in semantics and ego. This type of debate seeks estrangement instead of engagement and confrontation instead of communication. It is unspiritual, unholy and against the basic beliefs and aspirations of all of the world’s authentic religions.

Thank you for reminding us of the plight of nontheists in prisons possibly without access to religious support. I would add hospitals and schools.

Your efforts are important and appreciated.

Os