Not
all atheists are alike. On the one hand, you have the hard core
atheists who demand that others, like believers, open their eyes to the
reality in which no deity can exist. God, they argue, cannot exist for
the simple and undeniable fact that evil exists. Religion is dangerous
and violent, and it’s time that people outgrow their psychological
dependence on their childish images of the old white bearded man in the
clouds.
On
the other hand, you have atheists, like Alain de Botton, who recognize
some merits to holding on to religion. To quote Alain de Bottom, Religion
"teaches us to be polite, to honour one another, to be faithful and
sober", as well as instructing us in "the charms of community". On Alain
de Botton’s Religion for Atheists: “De
Botton’s inspiring new book suggests that rather than mocking
religions, agnostics and atheists should in fact steal from them. He
boldly argues that the supernatural claims of religion are of course
entirely false - but that religions still have some very important
things to teach the secular world. “
In other words, religion, for the sympathetic atheists like de Botton, is socially useful. Without religion, there would be moral and social unrest that would spell the end of civilization.
But
what does it mean for something or someone to be perceived as useful?
For something to be useful, it serves a purpose outside itself. For
example, the sharp pointed branch is useful in times of armed struggle,
if one can not purchase a knife. The branch can be used for anything,
e.g., killing, defending one’s self, or for any other use aside from
killing, defending one’s self, such as sticking it deep into the ground
to be used as a peg. Another example of use is when I treat another
person as a means for my own selfish purposes.
Alain
de Botton therefore perceives morality, as taught in religion, as a
means for social cohesion. He means that the usefulness of doing good to
to the other, is not performed for the sake of the person in front of
me, but for the sake of keeping intact the group to which I, and
possibly the other, belong. The act is right not because it is the right
thing to do. It is right because it sustains the group.
I have no argument against those atheists if they are referring
to a group of people who, out of fear or habit, attend mass every
Sunday, or who act as Christians or Muslims or Jews because they’re
conscious that others are watching their every step; or, who interpret
the religious texts to their liking. In other words, I don’t mind at
all when the sympathetic atheists like de Botton say that religion is
useful for as long as they are referring to a group of people who
manipulate religion to suit their psychological dependence. The idea
that religion is socially useful is valid because people’s behavior made
it so.
However,
when you consider those believers who are psychologically independent,
truth seekers who have no regard as to how Truth appears to them; those
who perform genuine acts of self sacrifice, and who expect nothing, I
repeat, expect nothing in return, not even salvation for their sakes,
atheists keep mum about them, as though they don’t count. As though,
they don’t exist.
I
say this at least: these psychologically independent, highly spiritual
beings exist. And, they, not the psychologically dependent ones, are the
ones whom one should study and emulate to be able to understand what
religion really is all about. So, why are they not being talked about?
It’s simple: they, with the exception of the Dalai Lama, are not
popular. They are few. They don’t make the news. For the media, they are stories that don't sell. And, atheists don't read them.
