Can an atheist hate God?
One of my readers, the irrepressible Beetle, thinks not. Beetle writes: “The fundy stereotype of the atheist has the latter hating God. But that is absurd of course, because one would not waste so much emotion on something which one did not believe in.”
But is it really absurd? Not according to protest atheism. This is a type of atheism which affirms
(1) I believe God does not exist
Of course all atheists affirm (1). The protest atheist distinguishes him or herself by also affirming something like:
(2) If God does exist, God should not be worshipped.
There is more here than just a formal withholding of worship however. The protest atheist also likely holds something like
(3) If God does exist, God should be hated.
The most famous example of protest atheism is found in Dostoyevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov where Ivan the atheist relays to his pious Christian brother Alyosha a story of a young boy who was torn apart by hunting dogs in front of his mother. Then with a deep bitterness Ivan tells Alyosha, “It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket.” Ivan does not ultimately believe God exists, but even if God does exist Ivan makes clear that he wants nothing to do with him.
What is the source of Ivan’s anger? As the context makes clear it is the problem of evil. If there is any superintending divine intelligence that allows the world’s evil for some divine purpose, Ivan wants nothing to do with that God. Such a deity is worthy of nothing but rebellion. Not only does Ivan refuse worship to God (b) but in fact he hates God (c). Or, more correctly, if God exists then he hates God.
The concept at play here is quite simple. Consider the following analogy. A man comes back to his home town in Kansas and discovers that it has been wiped out. His first thought is that the town was destroyed by a tornado. But the man also concludes that if there was some intelligence behind the destruction of his town — e.g. an assault by Al Qaeda– then he will rebel against and hate those people who destroyed his town. But for now he believes the culprit was an undirected tornado.
That is like the protest atheist’s position on God. They don’t believe God exists but if he does exist they will refuse to worship him and will hate him.
Tags: atheism, Dostoyevsky, protest atheism, The Brothers Karamazov, theism
44 Comments
One Trackback
-
[...] came when I read the comment of Curt Cameron (not to be confused with Kirk Cameron) in response to my discussion of protest atheism. Let’s begin by citing Curt’s comment in [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Kevin says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 4:50am
Wouldn’t this be more like agnosticism?
I guess I just can’t understand what you mean by “they don’t believe god exists but if he does…”
Not believing god exists has no meaning in this case – right?
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 5:26am
The bloke who sees his home town flattened in Tornado Alley immediately comes to believe that it was flattened by a tornado. But even as he believes that he recognizes that should the evidence turn out to support terroristic activity instead, he would hate the terrorists responsible. So there’s no problem being an atheist but recognizing “should I turn out to be wrong I’ll still reject god.”
To bad its fictional says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 6:02am
I do hate the God of the old testament, I would have to question someones morals for believing in this God or any other God like it, it jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control-freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser, misogynistic, homophophic,racist,infanticidal,genocidal,filicidal, pestilential, megalomantical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent, bully.
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:04pm
Mr. Dawkins visited my blog?
Beetle says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 8:55am
Protest atheism seems like a very stunted theology. Are there non-fictional archtypes?
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:02pm
Sure. I saw a debate between Bill Craig and an atheist named Henry Morgentaler back in 1993 or 1994. Morgentaler was asked by an audience member whether he would bow to God if it could be shown that God did exist. Morgentaler responded, with palpable indignation, that he would not bow to God. That’s protest atheism.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:05pm
But Randal, why bow? If it weren’t for you, your daughter would not exist. Does that mean that you expect her to worship you? Also, no doubt you have given some thought to the fact that it is nonsensical for a perfect being to require worship.
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:21pm
Being a partial cause in the existence of another is not a sufficient criterion to demand worship from the other.
“Also, no doubt you have given some thought to the fact that it is nonsensical for a perfect being to require worship.”
Please explain what you mean by “perfect being”, “require” and “worship” and then where you think the problem lies with respect to the definitions you’ve provided.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:34pm
Come on. Don’t give me that partial cause crap. Without you and your conscious decision to procreate (let’s ignore free will for the moment), your daughter would not exist.
If we accept your partial cause argument, should your daughter worship both you and your wife?
Please explain what you mean by “perfect being”, “require” and “worship” and then where you think the problem lies with respect to the definitions you’ve provided. If someone is perfect they, by definition, don’t need anything.
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:47pm
On your first point, get back to me when you can create sperm and ovum ex nihilo.
On the second point, classical theism doesn’t affirm that God needs worship. Indeed, it explicitly denies it (God as actus purus, existing a se, et cetera). In the twentieth century a number of theologians have critiqued this tradition of classical theism, and the more radical among them have argued that God does, in some sense, need the love of his creatures in the parallel way that one human being needs another, but that such mutual dependence is part of the concept of perfection.
Whichever of these avenues one chooses it is clear that there is no problem such as you describe.
Robert says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 2:30pm
John Danaher has at least one post that looks at “the problem of worship” with some philosophical rigor.
Personally, I’m not too interested in this argument because it looks laden with definitional disputes like the ones you have already brought up. It’s complicated – which doesn’t make it wrong, but leaves a lot of room for mistakes.
I have a different problem with the worship thesis. (see next comment)
Robert says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 2:37pm
Worship declares that “God is just, righteous and good”. (Or something like that) Wouldn’t we need to judge that’s true before saying it? Yes, you would think so. But skeptical theists (knowing that the Bible makes this judgment hard) say that God is good in spite of any evidence we actually find. There’s really no use in making a judgment after all.
I don’t buy that. A refusal to judge God’s character leaves me with very little I can honestly say. I might as well just say that “God is who he is” and stop all this nonsense about calling him “good” as if that would add something meaningful to his description.
I think character judgment is a needed step to genuinely worshipping God, but it’s a step that skeptical theists want to avoid. That leaves them with a God who is good only by definition, and it does nothing to reconcile what the Bible says about him.
This is a real problem. The Bible presents humanity with a God who at least appears to be unworthy of worship. Natural evils compound this problem, but the skeptical theist says, “God is good anyway”. I think they have made a mistake.
If we cannot judge God, we cannot judge him to be good. And if we cannot judge him to be good, what use is there in saying that he actually is good, if in fact we can’t make that judgment?
Beetle says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 3:16pm
As Symptom777 has pointed out, it is an absurd question that Henry could not reasonably be expected to answer honestly. Your example of Ivan, and even your definition of Protest Atheist, sounds more like an angry disappointed theist.
I have never heard of Morgentaler. He does not really seem to fit your definition, despited falling for the trick question.
Can you pick out a couple protest atheists from this Periodic Table of Atheists and Antitheists? I would really like to get a better sense of what you are talking about.
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 3:54pm
You can’t be a theist if you affirm (1).
Beetle says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 4:43pm
Agreed. I understand Dostoyevsky wrote Ivan to be an atheist, but the quote you cite does not square with that. Hate is just too involved an emotion to be attached to something one believed to be fictional.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 10:16am
I’ll buy 1 and 2 but I don’t understand 3. Whether or not god exists makes no difference to me in circumstances where his/her/its presence is indistinguishable with his/her/its absence. Telling me I hate god (or the idea of god) is like telling me I hate a unicorn. All that being said, I guess I can see why someone listening to Chistopher Hitchens rant about the totalitarian nature of a god that watches your every thought might come to hate the idea of god. OK, I understand 3 …
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:12pm
“Telling me I hate god (or the idea of god) is like telling me I hate a unicorn.”
Um, no it is not. But you certainly have a vast collection of the baser tools from the village atheist barn.
Saying that you hate God is saying that you hate an intelligence that allowed x or y o occur (or intended for x or y to occur). It is exactly parallel to saying you hate the intelligence that (might have) levelled your home town.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:31pm
Agreed. IF an intelligent being directed the levelling of my home town, I would hate it.
Robert says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 2:51pm
It seems pretty obvious to me that I can hate things that do not actually exist.
TAM, you are mistaking the map and the territory. In other words (for those not familiar with LessWrong), we often think our state of mind has a one-to-one relationship with reality. It doesn’t. That’s how I can have hate for something not in “the territory”. My hate (or love, or fear, or respect) might be misguided, but the state of mind exists anyway.
To say you “hate” God or “love” God is describing your mind (the map) irrespective of what exists in reality (the territory). The question of God’s existence is interesting, but it is still a separate question from the state of your mind.
Randal is right on this one, I’m pretty sure.
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 3:50pm
I don’t believe that Baskin Robbins sells vomit flavored ice cream. But even if they do, I’d never buy a cone.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 10:18am
I can certainly understand why Job hates Yahweh!
Symptom777 says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 12:21pm
Surely what you are describing as “protest atheist” is in reality a misotheist. Anyone who hates (a) god is no more an atheist than he is a Christian.
So, please don’t try and bring on the Spanish Inquisition by heading off down that route.
I can’t even imagine why an atheist should hate religions, although some aspects are distasteful; I can certainly imagine why one religious grouping would hate another one: I’m sure Christianity holds more allure for a Muslim than does atheism. The fact is that the vast majority of people claim some kind of belief in some kind of god, whilst clearly the vast majority of those must be entirely wrong. I’m happy for that majority in either sense.
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:18pm
If you affirm (1) then you’re an atheist. I already explained how you can affirm (1) and (2) and (3) as well. I provided a famous case from literature — Ivan — and a case from real life — Morgentaler. I suggest you start asking atheists what Morgentaler was asked: if there was a God would you worship him. You’ll soon find out that there are many protest atheists out there.
Symptom777 says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:24pm
They aren’t atheists though are they?
Anymore than the guy who goes to church on Sunday in his best clothes and fancy car and pretends to put money in the collection box is a Christian.
If I asked you “if god doesn’t exist would you stop worshipping him” what does that make you: a non-christian or an idiot?
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:42pm
Morgentaler is an atheist. Are you saying that affirming (1) is not sufficient to be an atheist? Then what is?
Symptom777 says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:50pm
“Morgentaler is an atheist.”
Is he accredited, or a freelancer?
“Are you saying that affirming (1) is not sufficient to be an atheist? Then what is?”
(1) is not only sufficient, it’s complete.
Clearly at the moment that you demonstrate to an atheist that god actually does exist, he has several choices, but atheism is no longer one of them. Likewise at the moment that you demonstrate to a Christian that God does not exist, he has several choices but Christianity is not one of them.
In any event demonstrating that god exists does not demonstrate a requirement to bow to him. I don’t recall that being a useful form of worship in any bible, sounds more like Kim Il Sung.
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 1:55pm
“Clearly at the moment that you demonstrate to an atheist that god actually does exist, he has several choices, but atheism is no longer one of them.”
Of course. If a protest atheist is provided with sufficient evidence to believe God exists he will abandon (1) and become a theist who refuses to worship God. That’s precisely what it means to be a protest atheist.
Symptom777 says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 2:06pm
I didn’t for one moment think that you wouldn’t cling on to your prejudice.
We know how this works, don’t we? We start off by attributing something bad to a part of a population, then we decide that the whole population shares that bad aspect, then we start to persecute those people on that basis, and then we drive them to gas ovens in trains.
But, you have invented all this for yourself. I should take a close look at yourself if I were you.
I notice too that you decided not to answer the if god doesn’t exist question, which is exactly comparable.
Which one are you?
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 3:47pm
Symptom777,
My book You’re not as Crazy as I Think is dedicated to the problem of marginalizing doxastic communities. But that has nothing to do with the fact that some people want there not to be a God and that they explicitly say that they wouldn’t worship God if he existed. You should take up your cause with Morgentalter, not me.
Your claim that recognizing the existence of protest atheists will start us on the slippery slope to the holocaust has to be the silliest thing I’ve heard all week.
Symptom777 says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 4:12pm
“But that has nothing to do with the fact that some people want there not to be a God and that they explicitly say that they wouldn’t worship God if he existed. ”
It also has nothing to do with atheism.
“Your claim that recognizing the existence of protest atheists will start us on the slippery slope to the holocaust has to be the silliest thing I’ve heard all week.”
I could care less, your answers to date are the silliest things I’ve heard all decade. So let’s just abuse each other, eh?
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 4:13pm
“It also has nothing to do with atheism.”
It does if they affirm (1).
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 5:13pm
I hope I didn’t tick you off too much. And I wasn’t “abusing” you. I really do think that the equation you made is silly as in “lacking good sense”.
Let me try this: what is the basis of your belief that recognizing that people like Morgentaler exist could very likely lead to a holocaust against all atheists? If you have some basis for thinking this is a likely outcome I’d be more than happy to consider it (so would Morgentaler since he survived the holocaust).
Pat says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 2:23pm
I don’t even buy premise 1. Seriously, I don’t give thought to “believing something doesn’t exist.” Expending energy even on that would consume my life and force me to expire at an early age… think of all the ideas that you’d have to actively not believe to get through a day. I simply give it no time – do you actively disbelieve every other deity proposed by everyone else in a day, or do you simply not give them thought, remove them from consideration?
I find no evidence for God any more so than Zeus – I see plenty of evidence of worshipers, of doctrine, of people who do (or in Zeus’ case, did) believe. But that’s it. It’s not that I believe God doesn’t exist – I can’t affirm that any more than I can affirm there is no other life in the universe – it’s a big place, I can’t say I’ve explored it all. But so far, evidence is lacking, so there is no *positive* reason to believe God /does/ exist, at least as described by current religions, or even Deism – even that supposes a supernatural influence and invokes a what-created-the-creator conundrum.
Robert says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 3:05pm
Weird. You do realize that you are typing comments into a Christian theologian’s blog, right?
Pat says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 3:16pm
Yes. That’s precisely the point. Believing is an affirmation – I don’t affirm that God does not exist. I affirm that I do not see any evidence that there is a God. There is a fundamental difference. The thought given is not one of “See, there’s more proof that there isn’t a God.” I give time when somebody claims positive evidence, then judge based on the claim. Otherwise, I don’t wander through my life spending energy on not believing. I came here because of the article on the doctrine of eternal suffering, out of interest in what somebody who is a believer would say. I was an atheist long before I really understood what this meant, or what eternal suffering represented.
I spend about as much time as this, when presented with arguments or evidence, to see if anything positive does exist. I’m not here to affirm the negative; I’m here seeking evidence of the positive, which I have yet to see.
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 3:49pm
Pat, you’re describing your own epistemic state. That’s fine. But other atheists are persuaded based on empirical and a priori evidence that God does not exist.
Symptom777 says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 5:17pm
I see now we are at the crux of your problem. Whne pressed you have no answers; I notice it in many of your entries, comments followed by “I’ll come back to this later”, but later never arrives.
I stumbled upon your blog accidentally whilst researching Dawkins, and couldn’t let your churlish attack on his letter to his 10-year old daughter pass. But I’m obliged to because you have no defence. So enjoy, I’m out of here, I can better talk to my back wall.
You may delete me from your database.
randal says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 5:26pm
I ask you to defend your outrageous claims and you reply by complaining that I don’t defend my claims. Going out on a note of irony are we?
The Atheist Missionary says:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 5:52pm
He took his football and went home. That’s ok – I’ve got lots of balls and I’m trying to juggle them all at the same time.
Curt Cameron says:
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 at 2:17pm
Here’s a hypothetical conversation:
Curt: My sister died of cancer last week.
Mauser: Yes, the leprechauns gave her cancer.
Curt: You really believe that? I don’t think leprechauns are real.
Mauser: But if you did believe in leprechauns and believed that they gave her cancer, would you worship them?
Curt: Uhh, no, of course not. If I believed that I would hate them.
Mauser: You’re a “protest a-leprechaunist”!
Curt: You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Mauser: What’s the source of your anger? You protest a-leprechaunists — you don’t believe leprechauns exist, but if they do, you’d refuse to worship them and would hate them.
Curt: [backs away slowly]…
The Atheist Missionary says:
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 at 2:50pm
Curt, I wouldn’t back away slowly. I’d run for the hills.
Raytheist says:
Monday, July 11, 2011 at 7:10am
As an atheist I get really tired of this “you think you’re an atheist, but I know better, you’re just angry at god” shtick that I always get from ignorant christians. My response to them is: why do you hate Zeus? Why do you hate Thor? Why do you hate Quetzlcoatl etc. etc.
Also, if it could be proved that a god existed, the onus would be on theists to prove that this god should be worshipped. If it could be proved that the christian god did not exist, but Thor did, would christians suddenly start worshipping Thor? Perhaps they would, out of fear. However, that is a slave mentality and I despise it.
randal says:
Saturday, July 16, 2011 at 3:39pm
I can’t speak for others but I don’t hate Zeus, Thor or Quetzlcoatl.
“if it could be proved that a god existed, the onus would be on theists to prove that this god should be worshipped.”
It depends what we mean by God. If we mean what the perfect being definition is, i.e. a being that exemplifies the maximally compossible set of great making attributes, then it follows necessarily that such a being is to be worshipped.
“If it could be proved that the christian god did not exist, but Thor did, would christians suddenly start worshipping Thor?”
Not if “Thor” is accurately described in Norse mythology.
Joseph says:
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:15am
Pat is right in his comment above, I have yet to meet an educated atheist who will state “(1) I believe God does not exist”.
High Priest Dawkins makes this pretty clear, one cannot prove a negative. All that can be said is that one can see no evidence for God’s existence.