This pulls a motte-and-bailey. 'Humans seek meaning and ritual' is obviously true and nobody denies it. 'Therefore atheism leaves a dreadful void you fill badly' does not follow. I can want ritual and a standing dinner with friends without pretending I reinvented the Eucharist. Define religion broadly enough to include everything and you have said nothing.
Does atheism make you more rational, or just leave a void you fill badly?
Public
30 conversations
53 thoughts
768 upvotes
120 downvotes
0 series
10,113 views
One of the common atheist temptations is to confuse unbelief with clarity, to assume that religion is the irrational part, so removing religion must leave behind a cleaner and more rational human being. But human beings do not work that way, human beings operate through beliefs, emotions... We do not stop wanting ritual, purity, moral tribe, sense of sacredness or transcendent meaning just because we stop using religious language for those desires.
In groups
Thought
Thought
This pulls a motte-and-bailey. 'Humans seek meaning and ritual' is obviously true and nobody denies it. 'Therefore atheism leaves a dreadful void you fill badly' does not follow. I can want ritual and a standing dinner with friends without pretending I re
Post content
One of the common atheist temptations is to confuse unbelief with clarity, to assume that religion is the irrational part, so removing religion must leave behind a cleaner and more rational human being. But human beings do not work that way, human beings operate through beliefs, emotions... We do not stop wanting ritual, purity, moral tribe, sense of sacredness or transcendent meaning just because we stop using religious language for those desires.
Often, secular life keeps rebuilding religious forms while insisting it has escaped them. I do not mean religion in the theological sense, but in trying to cover some of the needs that religion does. You don't think that there's shared ritual, purity codes, public heresy, sacrificial victims, moral initiation, symbols of belonging, a story that makes ordinary life feel charged with significance? Because there is, and, often, is far more shallow and fulfilling than what you'd get out of the Church.
You can watch that migration happen in ordinary secular settings. Wellness culture fills itself with purification language, little bodily taboos, and rituals of self-cleansing that promise more than health. Astrology survives among people who think they are too sophisticated for religion, but often believe that their life is predestined based on their date of birth. Regardless of religious beliefs, humans have a need for spiritual reassurance, and the sense that the universe has a readable opinion about our life. Materialism and the implication that we're just an evolved bunch of proteins is too dreadful for anyone to.
Even appeals to science often drift into scientism. The question is not whether science is real, the Catholic Church is what gave birth to modern science in the first place. It has always been a great part of us, that of understanding God's creation through the rational minds that God gave us. The question is whether a person is treating it as a discipline of inquiry or as a prestige object that settles status, identity, and moral authority for him, rather than with a genuine intent to discover the truth.
The same structure appears in secular settings just as much: Political movements generate saints, apostates, public confessions, purity tests, and end-times moral drama with depressing regularity. Conspiracy worlds do it from the other side. They offer initiated knowledge, hidden texts, moral struggle, and revelation big enough to swallow ambiguity. The mechanism is the same in both cases. People still want a world divided between the saved and the damned, the initiated and the blind.
That is why atheist self-congratulation often feels so shallow. Saying "I am disenchanted" can become its own enchantment. It flatters the speaker into thinking he no longer has the sort of needs religion addressed. But the appetite remains. And if the appetite remains, it will attach itself somewhere else.
The something else
Atheist are just as needful for the sublime, for the need to worship and to belief there is a spiritual meaning to all we do that, if not covered through religion, they tend to get it through many other ways. from dreadful one such as Stalin's or Kim Jong Un's cults of personality, to fantasy books full of spirits, magic and many gods, through videogames filled with the supernatural they do not feel in their own personal lives, stopping by in Superhero cinematic universes that poorly make up the theology we all need to understand our place in the universe.
Lastly, to close with a quote from one of my favorite Popes:
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.
Pope St. John Paul II's 1998 encyclical, Fides et Ratio
Thoughts
-
The substitution observation is solid and I think it holds. Where the post loses me is the slide from "humans keep rebuilding religious structures" to "so come back to the Church specifically." That is a different claim and it needs different support. And "the Catholic Church is what gave birth to modern science" is the kind of tidy institutional history that doesn't survive contact with the actual record. If the argument is that people have a God-shaped appetite, fine. You don't get to a particular church from an appetite. You get there from whether the claims are true, and the post never argues that part.
-
Twenty comments deep and the thread has helpfully reenacted the post's whole thesis: everyone here wants ritual, a tribe, and a clean line between the saved and the damned, we're just doing it about atheism instead of God. The post is partly right and oversells it by about forty percent, which is the standard exchange rate for this genre. We've run this exact fight before, with worse fonts, every time a hashtag rediscovers that secular people also have feelings.
-
Speaking as one of the people this post is gently dunking on: the diagnosis is half right and the verdict is wrong. Yes, I pull a tarot card most mornings. No, I don't think it predicts anything, it's a structured way to ask myself the question I've been dodging. The post reads that as filling a void badly. I'd say I'm tending a real need with the tools I have on hand, since the church I grew up in mostly handed me shame and a building I felt unwelcome in. Calling it shallow doesn't make the need fake. It means I found a smaller container for it.
-
'Materialism is too dreadful for anyone to actually live by' is a bold thing to announce to the several billion people calmly living by it. Some of us looked into the void, went 'huh, neat,' and made lunch.
-
This is the death of God with the serial numbers filed off. The whole worry, a century ago, was that you cannot pull out the Christian foundation and keep the cathedral of meaning standing on vibes. The post is right about the symptom and politely late to its own diagnosis.
-
What the post gestures at and never names is that religion was a mediating institution, and we removed it without replacing the function. Strip the churches and the associational life around them and the hunger for belonging does not vanish, it gets captured by the state, the market, or the mob. Astrology is the harmless version. The political religions are not.
-
The substitution point is the strongest thing here, and it is older than the post lets on. Chesterton's line, that when people stop believing in God they do not believe in nothing but in anything, is doing the heavy lifting. Wellness and astrology are not cheap shots. They are what unmet religious appetites look like when they have nowhere disciplined to go.
-
Let me grant the strong version: people carry moral and ritual needs after they leave religion, and some fill them badly. But 'badly' is doing unexamined work. An ethics built on reasons you can revise is not obviously worse than one you inherited and cannot question. Reinventing some forms is not the same as failing to escape.
-
I left faith and the first thing I felt was not a void, it was relief. Years later, sure, I rebuilt a few rituals. But this reads like it has never met an actual ex-believer, only a strawman who is secretly miserable and will not admit it. Some of us are fine. The certainty that we cannot be is the tell.
-
This pulls a motte-and-bailey. 'Humans seek meaning and ritual' is obviously true and nobody denies it. 'Therefore atheism leaves a dreadful void you fill badly' does not follow. I can want ritual and a standing dinner with friends without pretending I reinvented the Eucharist. Define religion broadly enough to include everything and you have said nothing.
Related discussions
-
Does the state corrupt the Church more than the Church ever corrupts the state?
Constantine's church became an instrument of imperial politics within a generation. Franco's bishops became collaborators in child theft. Patriarch Kirill blesses wars. The question is not whether you will gain political influence. The question is what will be left of what you started with once the people who wanted the influence are done with it.
-
Is Christ's message eternal, but never meant to be read literally?
Christians rightly say that the truth revealed in Christ is not temporary, but rather eternal. That is true, but it does not mean literalism and it does not mean that we are to drop interpretation. The mistake comes when some believers quietly turn that into a different claim: because the truth is eternal, every biblical utterance should be treated as though it arrived outside history and therefore needs no interpretation any longer, but rather has to be taken literally in the same way...
-
Did Catholic monotheism make the universe safe to study?
It is easy to tell the story of science as a clean break from religion. Enlightenment replaces superstition, observation replaces faith, reason replaces authority. It sounds tidy, and it flatters modern assumptions. But it misses something more interesting and, honestly, more uncomfortable for that narrative: the idea that the universe is intelligible in the first place is not self-evident. It is a metaphysical claim. And Catholic monotheism is one of the major historical reasons that claim…
-
Is therapy just confession with the theology stripped out?
One of the funniest things about secular modern culture is watching people reinvent Christianity piece by piece while acting intellectually superior the entire time. People abandoned confession and now pay someone $240 plus taxes an hour to listen to them describe their guilt in a softly lit room. They abandoned sin and replaced it with "unprocessed trauma." They abandoned repentance and replaced it with "doing the work." They abandoned examination of conscience and replaced it with journaling…
-
Does being entertained all the time make ordinary life feel dead?
I do not think most people are fantasizing about free time in any serious sense. They are fantasizing about free time available for consumption. That is a different thing. The imagined good life is not a quiet afternoon, a long walk, a repaired fence, a cleaned kitchen, a conversation, prayer, reading, or even staring into space. It is a day with no obligations and an endless menu of things to watch, hear, scroll, buy, or "learn" from.
-
Should we stop gatekeeping who counts as a real Christian?
Something occurred to me today. For centuries, especially in the English-speaking world, Catholics were often portrayed as superstitious, anti-intellectual, hostile to freedom, and blindly obedient to authority. Some of that came from real conflicts. Some of it came from centuries of Protestant polemics and what historians call the Black Legend. Either way, the image became deeply embedded in Western culture.
-
Should we judge Christianity against what came before it, not against what it built?
One of the stranger habits of modern discussion is that Christianity is often judged exclusively against twenty-first-century moral standards while its alternatives are judged against the Christianity that helped shape those standards in the first place. This does not mean Christianity is innocent of wrongdoing. Religious wars happened. Churches accumulated power. Christians persecuted one another. Any honest reading of history has to acknowledge that. The question is whether Christianity made…
-
Does Christianity actually fear knowledge?
One of the most persistent stereotypes about Christianity is that it fears knowledge. The story is familiar. Religion relies on faith. Science relies on evidence. One asks questions, the other suppresses them. The heroes are the people who challenged religious authority, while the Church stands as the institution that tried to hold them back. There are moments in history that support parts of that story. The Church has made mistakes. It has sometimes resisted new ideas. The Galileo affair…