A Confusing Kind of Atheist

A problem that atheists face is that there’s no way to rationally ground morality within an irrational universe, which is to say, within a Godless universe. Different atheists approach this problem differently—most just do their best to ignore it—but there’s a kind that really perplexes me. This is the kind who says, “if you need religion to be good, that means you’re not good.”

(This is not quite as stupid as it looks on first blush, or rather, it’s as stupid as it looks but not for the reason it looks so stupid. They’re thinking entirely of “religion” as lists of rules like the ten commandments, rather than as as a description of the nature of the universe. Thus they are trying to say something like, “if you need a list of rules to follow it means that you don’t just automatically do everything good.” Which is, of course, true, though one wonders how absurdly hubristic or non-self-aware these people are that they are implicitly claiming that they’re perfect. Especially when they quite obviously aren’t.)

This kind of atheist invariably tries to argue that if a person ever needs to exercise self-restraint, that means that they’re a bad person. It is probably not entirely a coincidence that this kind of atheist is always a gentle autist who would have difficulty picking up a five pound bag of flour. I’ve no difficulty believing that they do not harm others because of any kind of self-restraint, since they’re so weak and unmasculine that they undoubtedly have no aggressive impulses at all. That much makes sense. What confuses me is how proud of this they are. It’s like they want a medal for their lack of ambition. They want people to look up to them for being physically useless.

Even weirder to me is how grossly historically ignorant they are. It never seems to occur to them that even a moderately knowledgeable person would be unable to name a time and place in which a strong, aggressive person who is sufficiently skilled at channeling their aggression so as to be successful—the kings of expanding kingdoms, for example—would not be at the top of social hierarchy while people like them—men who, to use Critical Drinker’s phrase, look like they use safety scissors to open a packet of crisps—would be at the bottom.

No one—anywhere—has ever given out medals for lacking ambition.


Discover more from Chris Lansdown

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.