Atheism has become a resurgent vocal alternative to religion. The Barna Group, a faith-based stat-tracker, confirms this overall trend among university students. I’ve had ties to this campus since 1996, and my personal experience at the university backs up the statistics. Today, I am encountering more students who express atheistic views than I did 10 years ago, when I became a Christian here. So it didn’t surprise me when I walked past Hoff Theater early this semester and saw a poster of Bill Maher burned onto a piece of toast, advertising the film Religulous.
Doubters and skeptics aren’t new to the world nor to the university. But atheists and non-believers are beginning to coalesce into a new evangelistic movement. Unofficial spokesmen for this brand of “new atheism” are best-selling authors. Humanist groups in England and the United States made headlines by sponsoring anti-religion displays and advertisements during the holiday season. Some are calling for public interest groups to be formed on behalf of non-believers, and President Obama made history when he mentioned “non-believers” in his inaugural address. Many atheists and agnostics cringe at the notion of being lumped together, but the hallmarks of a fledgling movement are there. And if you’ve seen the last three minutes of Religulous, then you know the movement has a sermon to preach – or, at least, Maher does on its behalf.
My purpose for writing this column, however, is not to make an argument against this movement. Obviously I do not share the same conclusions about God that these folks do, and I intend to spread the faith where they seek to squash it. But my concern for us here at the university is this: How will the believer and the non-believer seek to understand each other?
Sadly, as I have engaged the debate between believers and non-believers, I’ve seen an unfortunate “pot-calling-the-kettle-black” dynamic. For every believer who pegs an atheist as a hopelessly heartless manifestation of godlessness, there is an atheist convinced that the believer is a hopelessly irrational sky-fairy worshipper. For every Pat Robertson sound bite warning Pennsylvanians that rejecting intelligent design could trigger an earthquake from God, there is a Richard Dawkins quote comparing believing scientists to Nazi appeasers. Tit for tat. But posturing and ranting do little to advance truth, something both sides claim to seek. In that case, both sides are right about one thing: It is hopeless. Both sides start to betray the things they claim to stand for.
Christians do their cause little justice when they outright villainize the people who don’t share their faith – it makes it hard to love them. And a common refrain that I hear among atheists is that faith needs to be replaced with rational discourse. But when those same voices resort to condescension and name-calling to make a point, hasn’t “rational discourse” been compromised?
I recently read a book, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Athiest Changed His Mind, about Antony Flew, a life-long atheist philosopher who recently became convinced of the existence of the divine. Decades ago, he was part of the Socratic Club at Oxford University, along with Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. The club featured robust debate and passionate discussion between believers and non-believers. As Flew describes, the driving passion behind the get-together was simply to “follow where the argument leads.”
I, for one, like the idea of believers and non-believers engaged in sincere dialogue with a sense of mutual respect. If you like that idea too, then let’s get together – the more the merrier! Shoot me an e-mail. Count me in for a good talk – it sure beats stone-throwing.
Paolo Ugolini is a university alumnus from the class of 2000 and is working as a minister with the Disciples of Christ campus ministry. He can be reached at paolo_ugolini@hotmail.com.
