Margaret Atwood discusses religion and the dangers of theocracy – Parts 1-3
25 March 2008 by StardustThanks once again to our friend Spirula for finding this. Margaret Atwood is one of my very favorite authors who wrote The Handmaid’s Tale which is a very disturbing book set in the future about what would probably happen under theocratic rule. It would not only affect atheists and secularists, but also all religious denominations because the theocratic rule would discriminate against any other belief system that is not the official doctrine of the state government.
Here is a three-part program of Bill Moyer’s interviewing Margaret Atwood. Though they are long, grab yourself a cup of coffee and take the time to watch them.
I don’t agree with Margaret about atheism being a religion. She says that she is a “strict agnostic” because god cannot be proven or disproven. She says the atheist has a set belief that god does not exist. However, Margaret misunderstands that atheism says that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. Until someone proves to us otherwise, we have no reason to believe a god exists. Agnostics are just fence sitters, and I think Margaret though she won’t commit one way or the other seems to like the idea of a god and the “soul”.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
25 March 2008, on 1:26 pm
It’s a good point Margaret makes about how easily Americans rolled over for the Patriot Act.
25 March 2008, on 1:42 pm
I think Margaret though she won’t commit one way or the other seems to like the idea of a god
I’m just the opposite. God concepts are not comforting, unless finding a personality to blame for bad things is somehow comforting. To me, the idea that some divine being exists and yet death, misery, and pain continue to exist as well is a discomforting concept. It’s like finding the existance of a Universal Asshole appealing.
25 March 2008, on 2:58 pm
Spirula, I agree. God concepts are not at all comforting to me. That idea is disturbing. I do not like the idea of a supernatural entity watching me 24/7, pushing my buttons and pulling my strings, and an asshole one at that, as you have pointed out.
25 March 2008, on 3:28 pm
If tomorrow, someone came to me with indisputable proof of a deity’s existence, it wouldn’t change my not worshiping one even one little bit. Because my observations of this world- coupled with every single definition of godhead I’ve ever encountered, leave me with no doubt whatsoever that this newly proven entity would be apathetic, sadistic, psychopathic, incompetent, blind, or all of the above. And that’s not anything worthy of rewarding with adulation. I’d probably try to kill it, instead, or at least hurt it really, really bad…
Saw the Atwood/Moyers piece when it aired and, frankly, liked his session with Rushdie better. As great a journalist- and rationalist, as Moyers is, he could put a cokefiend to sleep just with the sound of his voice.
25 March 2008, on 6:31 pm
Ooh, a meaty post; thanks, Star.
I agree with you about agnosticism; I preferred calling myself one for a while because it felt too uncomfortable just discarding the whole idea of divinity and the supernatural. But then I realized, like you, that atheism isn’t about holding a specific belief – “there is no god” (at least for me) – it’s just about saying there’s no reason good enough or evidence to believe in such. As in the invisible pink unicorn in your backyard example, the default in the face of unprovability is just “nah, don’t think so.”
About the only concept of deity that I could reasonably say I’m still somewhat agnostic on is the deistic one – but it doesn’t bother me to mostly think, speak, and act as an atheist on that as well.
And yes, by and large we definitely accepted the Patriot Act like good little sheeple.
26 March 2008, on 1:50 am
Looks like a good find.
26 March 2008, on 7:10 am
Raindog – If god revealed himself to me tomorrow I would be so f*cked. I imagine the scene not unlike Godfather II with Michael kissing Fredo: just a big mob boss god telling me in its special way that I was soon to be taken out for my years or treachery both in and outside a church setting.
(Raindog, if I’m reading that rigt, my daughter’s middle name is “Waits”)
27 March 2008, on 11:48 am
I’ve often said that if I ever contemplated suicide, I would not do it because Margaret Atwood is writing another book RIGHT NOW and I don’t want to miss it.
Thanks for this.
27 March 2008, on 2:01 pm
I complete agree with what Margaret Atwood has to say.
I understand people’s rejection of a God concept when it comes to how god is described as the master of all things which controls universe and lets bad things happen because it is part of “the plan”. That is the theistic god that I have long rejected.
I could no longer follow a Christianity that accepted that version of God, which was a brutal beast which let you suffer, but still loved you. It is a contradiction.
It is when I rejected the Theistic deity, and accepted a non-Theistic deity that I truly understood religion. For me god isn’t a being, but an essence which exists in each of us. When Jesus said, “That which you do to the least of these mine brothers, you do to me”, he was touching on that concept. God isn’t an external thing at all, but inside each of us. Perhaps God is that recognition of the human condition, and we have place “God” attributes on it, but there is something that exists within each of us, and that may just be an evolutionary development (the most likely thing). Regardless of what it actually is, I think Jesus was touching on that.
It isn’t the myths, like the miracles and the myth of the resurrection, that define Jesus, but the message of peace he preached and the call for us to care about one another. The myths are just that, myths and metaphor and shouldn’t be taken as literal. If we give up our reason simply because a book says so, then we have failed to listen to what I would call God.
So while I understand people who can’t even imagine listening to Christianity at all, it changes fundamentally when you look at it not as a religion, but a philosophy of how to live. The ideas of a philosophy can be debated, and that is how it should be.
When I realized that we are each God, I realize that what I do to you, I do to myself. If I destroy you, I destroy myself. It was then those words of a philosopher, rather than a god, made much more sense, “that which you do to the least of these mine brothers, you did to me.”
27 March 2008, on 4:17 pm
I agree with you, Jonathan. ‘God’ is not an ‘invisible daddy in the sky’ but the connection between each of us. I don’t ascribe any supernatural qualities to this connection or ‘harmony’, just the qualities imbued by nature in all living things.
Atwood’s attitude about religion is along the same lines as mine. It’s not so much an acceptance of the existence of ‘God’ but the rejection of the popular Abrahamic versions. We reject Christianity because of the political and social ramifications of its self-centered dogma, not because of the mythology.
If Christianity hadn’t developed its political strategy through the Gospels of Paul, the Council of Nicea, and generations of bloodthirsty popes and ministers, it would have always been a minor Jewish cult. Only by demanding allegiance and fealty from its followers and the extermination or forced conversion of non-believers has Christianity been able to advance its theocratic dogma across the globe. It is the most self-destructive social activity humanity foolishly participates in. I don’t think that believing in something outside of our limited understanding is wrong but insisting that other people follow that belief is the reason we are up to our hips in blood.
Perhaps it will be seen as the next step in human evolution when we set aside such behavior for more progressive and worthwhile endeavors.
27 March 2008, on 4:29 pm
Geez. I’m even an outcast among atheists. I thought Atwood was terrible. She did say a few common sense things about theocracy and the (so-called) Patriot act, but other than that I found her historically ignorant and intellectually confused.
Maybe I’m just pissed because she trampled all over one of my pet peeves? Atheism is not a religion or a dogma. Athiesm is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. It makes no claims. Neither does theism for that matter. Theism is simply a belief in god or gods. Gnosticism or agnosticism has to do with knowledge. An gnostic knows. An agnostic doesn’t know.
Throughout the video Margret seems to get the difference, yet still calls atheism a dogma. Argh! And then she gets into all sorts of wishful thinking. Yes, the tiger in the boat makes a better story, but that’s not a reason to repeat it, unless, she believes fairy tales are better than reality?
Maybe Atwood believes humans are still just like those early men who painted their imaginations on cave walls? I don’t think I am. I don’t think all of us are. I have no use for god or unicorns or any other fairy tale unless it’s reading a child a bedtime story.
From my point of view, Atwood seems infatuated with the ideas of god and souls. I wouldn’t call her an agnostic. I would classify her as a believer who has many rational doubts, but is too afraid to take the leap. It’s almost as if, she knows its wrong, but believes anyway. She clings to the fantastic claims of ancient men because she cannot imagine how truly liberating it is to realize once and for all that we are alone.
27 March 2008, on 4:52 pm
^ Good point, Dirk.
Jonathan, your concept of “god” certainly makes more sense than traditional religion, and I suspect we would have very little to disagree about. Acharya S., whom I’ve been reading online (thanks, ChuckA), calls humanity her “goddess;” I think she means it in a similar way to you.
27 March 2008, on 8:24 pm
I have a completely different take on agnosticism and atheism:
I believe “God” (or The Creator, or Shiva or whatever name you want to use) exists but has no more interest in us than the simplest of life forms has in us, say an amoeba for instance. This seems incredibly obvious to me, and is plainly seen in the “loving God/vengeful God” paradox. He (it) is only aware of us on the level that we are aware of the amoeba.
And, conversely, we have no more chance of understanding the true nature or peace of God than an amoeba does of understanding us. We’re just WAY too dumb, and we don’t have the extra senses needed to detect God, much in the way the blind, deaf and taste-less amoeba has no means to detect us.
That may seem depressing at first, but it is actually tremendously liberating. We are free to do right merely because it is right to do so, and not because of possible judgment by a Super Being.
I believe this also corresponds to the “each of us is God” philosophy as well: since we are irrelevant to “God,” (just as the amoeba is irrelevant to us) we are free to bring spiritual meaning to our lives by how we interact with other irrelevant beings, and collectively devise a way to “know” the unknowable, if only in the most simplest of ways, such as learning to truly love your neighbor as you love yourself (and you can’t choose your neighbor!).
I’ve found it to be a tremendously satisfying and fulfilling way to live.
27 March 2008, on 11:37 pm
Your welcome Eve! (RE Acharya S)
Jonathan’s concept reminds me a lot of the New Age “Christ consciousness” and “All is(are) One” notion; as well as the Gnostic’s monad concept; which is akin, in a way, to a Pantheistic or perhaps even Deist belief…which is…
Oh fuck it!
As I’ve commented here before, the words sometimes get in the way because of how we’re all programmed to react.
An example is that religiously super charged word “soul”; which I totally avoided in MY New Age days; preferring “Entity” or “Energy”…akin to the more Eastern notion of “Atman”, being the essence of “I Am” consciousness.
And, of course, some form of reincarnation played a big role…without, however any dogmatic notion of a sky-daddy.
When I finally eliminated any notion of a deity…especially the ‘Western’ (Abrahamic) variety…I definitely realized I WAS an atheist; and skepticism became the watchword for ALL other theories, whether UFO alien or whatever.
In other words, I’m a very skeptical atheist who tries to maintain an “open (brain clinging) mind” to any ultimate answers about the Universe(s); be it Matrix-like or ala physicist Michio Kaku style…or even Extra-terrestrial Alien shtick…or…”I just don’t know!”
And Eve?…
I find Acharya S to be one of the few current writers with considerable “scholarly credentials”; as well as extensive knowledge (Joseph Campbell-like?) of the mythological origins of religious beliefs; in addition to a rather unique ability to ferret out the often subtle, literalistic errors that have been historically used to manipulate most ‘earthlings’.
Like Acharya S, perhaps, I’ve also always gravitated much more naturally(?) toward a metaphorical “goddess” idea.
You know…like Isis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis
or Aphrodite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite
or…Diana?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Woman
Purely metaphorical…of course!
Hmmm…Am I getting a little too ‘metaphorically’ excited now?
28 March 2008, on 5:25 pm
Nor Cal/Matt:
Are you sayin’ that the deludouche was more like a spring cleanin’ sortathang? Was Skyboss just gettin’ out the Skysol and wipin’ out 99.44% of all the humicrobes. Cooooool!