Roger Ebert: How I Believe in God

That was a really good read. Thank you.

A very thoughtful article, but I'll never for the life of me understand why people are so hesitant to labeled atheist.

It has a connotation that suggests fervor on par with religious belief. For many people, there not being a God is not so much something they believe as something they think, and are not eager to debate its finer points.

As soon as you mention that you're an atheist, believers are either hostile, disappointed or they pity you. It should be like Conan and Subotai: "What Gods do you pray to?" "None actually."

I think believers see non-believers as a threat. Maybe they are reacting to Madeline Murray O'Hare's tactics. Maybe the existence of a non-believer puts their own doubts to the front of their mind. I can't blame Ebert from wanting to doge that bullshit.

Yeah, in Ebert's case, it's pretty clear. He doesn't want his evangelizing of cinema to be compromised or dwarfed by becoming seen as Dawkins 2.0.

That's certainly reasonable, but just like the word "liberal", we need to rob it of it's acidic associations. If that's even possible, of course.

Yeah, to label myself an atheist is to suggest that I'm actually interested in making myself part of some group. I'm not. I simply don't believe. I'm not looking into if I get 500 Atheist Points this month I get a free Big Mac. What I want, mostly, is for religious people to leave me alone.

You're also a fan of generalization, apparently.

This was a good, thought-provoking read. My own take on his refusal to be labeled: In matters of pure thought and 'faith,' where one subscribes to no dogma but practices an open-hearted humanism, a label is a meaningless appendage, like a vestigial tail. Ebert clearly enjoys contemplating these concepts, and he's still open to the possibility of divinity, even if he doesn't actively believe in it.

That's a pretty difficult position to accurately label, and if I were Ebert I wouldn't want that kind of nuance boxed and dismissed with a one-word categorization.

I just think "atheist" gets a bad rap, like "liberal" has been allowed to be demonized for so long, and I think people oughta have the guts to own up to the title. Words have meanings, and sometimes they need defending.

I guess all I'm saying is that I'm tired of "them" owning the word.

I understand that, but I don't see how it's applicable to Ebert's case. He pretty clearly states that he isn't an atheist. As much as you or someone else might want him to wear that label, he's resistant to it - and I don't think it's because there's a stigma. I think it's because he views it as unnecessarily, and unfairly, reductive.

Speaking personally, I think "they" will always own the word in their minds, in the sense that "they" will continue to use it with a negative connotation attached. No amount of cultural shift will affect the meaning that "they" will personally ascribe to it. What will change, I believe, is mass-culture's perception of the word. The negativity will be sucked out of it by the tides of the young and the tolerant. People like yourself will voice yourselves less cautiously, and will be listened to more openly. But it isn't going to be easy, and it will often come at a mental/emotional/physical cost. People's notions of self and identity are wrapped up in words like 'atheist' and 'believer,' and many of those people will continue to be threatened by a destabilization in what they consider to be 'family values.' Or, on the other side, will continue to feel frustrated and fenced in by an intolerant larger culture - all as we make slow but visible strides toward a more socially accepting, yet individually hyper-critical, society. In other words: Business as usual.

(Just my two cents)

Strong Atheism = Somebody who would denounce god if he is proven to exist. This isn't to deny his existence if he's scientifically proven to be around, but that having a god would be bothersome, akin to being under a dictator. If you think, "Well, it would be nice if there was a god...", you aren't a 'strong' atheist.

If god isn't dead, we'll kill him.

Heheh.

Atheist = someone who does not believe in God. What you're talking about would be an antitheist (or perhaps a Satanist in modern parlance).

I don't know if you were putting forward your own definition or one that you think has attached to the term, but it's not at all accurate.

Er, perhaps you missed my edit of "strong" into that post. No, it has nothing to do with satanism. That is preposterous. Atheists have nothing in common with each other for being atheists. But it seems this thread is being caught up in societal labels, when only the religious have discernible concepts of what an atheist is supposed to be. The word is especially helpful in discussions, when you want to actually debate things instead of bringing god into them. Note that the atheists debate with themselves about things. The aforementioned word "atheist" is beneficial to both parties, they know religion won't come into discussion, as it poisons everything. Ever listen to christians argue about what their god is supposed to be? Argh.

That's not what strong atheism means at all.

What you're talking about might qualify as "antitheism" by some definitions (although even that might be considered more of an opposition to the belief in God, not opposition to a potentially existing God), but "atheism" is a matter of non-belief, not hatred toward a God that may or may not exist.

"Strong atheism" is just a means of differentiating between those who claim to "know" there's no God, and those who say that there's no proof that God exists (i.e., most atheists, even including such notables as Richard Dawkins), which some might consider agnostic.

I'll have to do some more reading, then; that was my conception of agnosticism. Argh, I'd best stick to speaking about myself.

EDIT: On this.

EDIT: Damn! I reread the above and it's also dumb. My concept of agnosticism is slightly more nuanced. But work has softened my brains.

I'm an atheist. If ever confronted with information to the contrary I'll make sure to clear it up through the appropriate religious channels. No one will ever know for sure either until after we're dead, or if any intellectual evidence is presented for or against a "God".

ETA: When it comes down to it I don't really care at all, though.

Actually Eric, none of us will know anything when we're dead

Until we're being read back the summary of our lives from the big book of You're Screwed, and then sent to Hell for eternal damnation. When that happens, I'll admit that I may have been incorrect.

You can be an agnostic atheist; you can also be an agnostic theist.

Agnosticism just says that you don't (or can't) know whether there is a God. That doesn't stop you from believing in one, or a few, or none.

Actually, something I find interesting in Western religious belief is the assumption that all the final answers about God wait in death. For all the arguments put forward about Gods in the Gaps and essential unfathomability and so on, they frequently seem to operate on the assumption that we'll know for sure when we're dead. My recollection of the Eastern religions' specific reincarnation/levels of consciousness beliefs are a but fuzzy, I never seem to hear anyone posit the possibility of a Judeo-Christian afterlife(s) where we are still in the dark about God's nature and motives. Except Albert Brooks, I guess.

The cynic in me says that the promise total enlightenment/eternal paradise upon death is simply the biggest carrot possible to dangle in front of the masses, to encourage them to keep their heads down, do their work and not to ask questions. And while I don't believe in the physical reality of such things, I can see the value in promising rewards to those who slog through all the day-to-day troubles and miseries of life and reach the end. But heaven to me seems like a big enough reward that doling it out based solely on a few decades worth of behavior on this earth sort of cheapens it. At the very least, saying death holds all the answers seems like a missed opportunity for some interesting mythology.

I can't speak for other people, but I was just kidding.

I know, but I'm stuck in the library all day and it was a random musing to distract me from my work. A sort of anti-carrot.

As an atheist, it isn't even of much concern to me in the big picture. It just strikes me as a very large assumption that much of Western religious thought just glosses over. I guess the seed of the idea exists in the concept of Purgatory, but in my religious experience that's not a topic that gets much in-depth treatment. From a logical standpoint, incremental afterlives don't seem very threatening to the underpinnings of Abrahamic faith, so I started wondering about it.

It actually strikes me as a fairly fundamental difference between Western and Eastern religions; Westerners tend to elevate and almost fetishize death while Eastern belief places it in a cyclical context that is comparatively mundane. Maybe it's because there are just so damn many of them, and with dense populations developing early in their cultural history, it was more difficult to view every individual death as an enormous, earth-shattering thing. Maybe its the crazy Asian work ethic that makes them more amenable to the idea of toiling on for multiple lifetimes, while we just want to kick back on a cloud with a bottomless cold one at the end of our day. Maybe I should've learned by now not to browse the religion forum when I take Adderall.

I think part of it has to do with the fact that in general human beings always have to be motivated by the thought of something better, and being content isn't enough. All of the horrible things that happen to us during our lives are on some etherial tally sheet accumulating and compensation eventually comes in an eternally joyful afterlife. Modern religion is essentially just a theoretical reward system.

Right, but that's true of pretty much any afterlife. I was wondering why in sweeping terms, one group would be more comfortable with an ongoing, incremental reward system, and another would say it's this life and we're done. Whether you end up in heaven or hell, your journey is over when die.

I don't think that's a question that can be asked in a generalized manner though because the answer is based on the individual.

The question is still fundamentally the same, though. When both systems offer the promise greater understanding and rewards after death, what draws person A to a stark, final conception of how they will be doled out and person B to a more nuanced, measured one? At a glance, it would seem that person A may have a more pessimistic view of what life is, leading them to believe they deserve a greater reward for successfully navigating it the once. Or you could say that Person B has been so beaten down that even their dreams consist of much toil for little reward. I don't have an answer (although I'd lean more toward the first formulation), it's just an aspect of theology and anthropology I find interesting.

I think I look at it realistically. It has nothing to do with being pessimistic or being beaten down; I just find the notion of an afterlife to be completely absurd and illogical.

Me too. A and B weren't meant to stand in for either of us.

I know, I was just saying what I thought.

I've found that my religion just makes me feel guilty about all of my bad choices. I'm starting to wonder if a lifetime of guilt is worth it.

Come to the darkside, we have cookies.

Delicious, Judgement Day inducing cookies.

Before the Almighty sentences me to eternity in hell, I'll brush off the crumbs onto his divine rug cloud.

One of us! One of us!

Perhaps Ebert has no capacity for faith. Atheism requires just as much faith as belief.

No it doesn't.

You're right. What they both require, I think, is an element of certainty. Ebert doesn't appear to value certainty as much as inquisitiveness.

Well, that goes back to the concept of "hard atheism" (which does require certainty) vs. "soft atheism" (which doesn't). But I can't fault Ebert or anyone else for not wanting to get into the semantics of it.

That's incorrect. Faith would require a semblance of caring. I don't care what happens if I die.

I once had a dream where I was driving along, minding my own business, when suddenly Hell arrived on earth.

My reaction upon taking a look at my surroundings? Meh. Kept driving. Odd dream.

Funny, I always thought that the only thing that unites atheists is a lack of faith.

I know I have great faith in science, otherwise it'll just go away. And I don't want to live in that world.

If you die?

You've just promoted yourself to the Most Dangerous Game, my friend.

"Lack of belief in God" would be more accurate. Atheism doesn't address faith or belief in anything but God. For instance, some might consider Buddhists to be atheist.

Hah! You never know. You may all be just a fever dream on an operating table.

Why is it that we have to be lacking something if we don't believe in a God or have faith in religion?

Because that's how grammar works. What's "theism"? A belief in God. What's "atheism"? A lack of that. It's just a grammatical construction that indicates you lack belief in God, a distinction that bears mention in conversations about belief in God vs. disbelief in God.

If you feel the need to use a more neutral construction, how about "secular humanist?"

But, you also know that it has a negative connotation, and if you were writing about something in a positive - or even neutral light - you don't use that word. Sure you could say that was just the word that was used, but it feeds in to an overall way of thinking that an atheist is somehow less of a person than someone who believes in the Almighty.

And, I like you Dave, but I don't need the "Because this is how grammar works..." spiel.

I wasn't trying to be condescending with that - it's just grammatical fact. The most accurate way to characterize a disbelief in God is using the word "atheist," a word that describes a lack of something.

The negative connotation is there, but it has less to do with the construction of the word and more to do with the social importance given to the idea of atheism.

Like I said, if you want to use the word "atheist" to charactize yourself, you are dealing with a word constructed around the concept of belief in God. There isn't a more accurate way to express this concept in the positive. Like I said, you can use "secular humanist," but it doesn't directly address the belief or disbelief in God.

Philosophically, "atheism" is a term that only has meaning in relation to what it's reacting against, but that doesn't automatically make it negative. For instance, the words "non-discriminatory," "non-profit," and "antivirus" are all constructed using a negative, and they still have neutral or positive connotations.