I liked her other submission and today I figured I’d post up another one she wrote. It is about the claim that atheists only disbelieve God because they have been victims in some way or another. If you enjoy this, she is on Facebook.
_______
“James Spiegel wrote in the “Making of the Atheist” that most people are atheists or agnostics because either one or both of the following are true: 1) there was a major disaster earlier in life that made the person angry towards God (perhaps a death of a loved one or a disappointment with some people in the church) 2) the person simply does not want God to be part of their life. Do you agree with this? Does it relate to you (if you feel comfortable sharing)”
If that were true, then every single victim of childhood sexual abuse would be an atheist, which is not so; and every battered woman would be an atheist; and every child mercilessly beaten for some innocuous behavior would be an atheist; and every victim of war, disease and misery would be an atheist.
It just isn’t so; in fact, people who SHOULD be atheists AND angry at the church — if not at god — usually are not, thanks to early childhood indoctrination about forgiveness and fear of their own rage.
The vast numbers of abused people who are in fact “true believers” knocks Spiegel’s theory out of the water and into the sand trap of assumptions that are clearly guided by his own fear, contempt for and prejudice against atheists.
His are sweeping generalizations that apply to most of humanity and such generalizations permit the arrogant to assume that those who don’t share their own beliefs are somehow broken (or unwholesome) because of their past, implying that they need some kind of “healing” or exorcism or sympathy for their brokenness.
Such theories imply that lack of belief is pathological, but I think the table can be turned to suggest that lack of atheism might be just as pathological, or at least the result of human trauma and inability to face life on life’s terms – as unfair and painful, despite its beauty.
What evidence does Spiegel offer to establish his ideas, and is he aware of any exceptions to his “rules” for the “making of an atheist”?
What about the devout Christian who’s also been disappointed or traumatized by the Church who manages to maintain their faith INSTEAD of turning to atheism?
How does he explain those people NOT becoming atheists?
Do they have better constitutions or something?
Are they favored by god over the unluckier atheist compatriots who are to be pitied and saved or scorned?
How conveniently this man assumes that atheists are victims, and yet, his assumptions seem completely useless, except to create some saccharine affectation of believers who might otherwise damn the poor, lost soul for her stubbornness and lack of humility.
Spiegel is both cloying, condescending and artless to presume that people who think outside the box of religion are somehow “damaged goods.” As if religion does not create plenty of that with no help from natural disasters or normal, everyday life traumas! Just think about the magnitude of the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church and ask why more of its victims aren’t atheists?
The answer might be something akin to “Stockholm Syndrome,” something I have personally experienced and witnessed as a child brought up in a cult.
I’m not mad at god because I can’t be mad at other peoples’ imaginary friends. That’s just plain silly.
But I have seen how remaining attached to an imaginary friend’s abusive human apologists is something very adequately explained as Stockholm Syndrome.
Google it up if you’re not familiar with it. It’s quite fascinating and alarming, and it might explain why more victims of church abuse never become atheists, something Spiegel’s simplistic theories probably don’t address.
