I watched a collection of videos today from a Wakelet post called "The Ultimate Atheism Collection" shared by Richard Dawkins. It includes videos from Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Jacque Fresco, Bertrand Russell, and Stephen Fry along with a cartoon gameshow about biblical contradictions.
I was going to share it on Facebook, but decided not to (I did give enough information to Google it, if it sounds interesting). The reason I didn't share it directly is I realized this expression is seen by some of my friends and family as an attack on them personally because it is, in many ways, an attack on their beliefs which are an important part of their identity.
If I pause for a moment and consider this, it concerns me. If I was to talk about how silly it is for people to get violently upset about a cartoon of Muhammad, many of those same friends and family would agree with me. But if I share something anti-religious they personally don't like, especially as someone who myself believed in a version of their same religion for most of my life (including 6 years in full-time ministry), that is seen as if I did something wrong.
What I'm now thinking is wrong is not engaging with these arguments because it's like only representing one side of the argument. Growing up, I never listened to any of the individuals mentioned above. No one in my family or anyone I knew talked about their ideas. Not only that, there was this feeling that somehow doubt because of ideas from these men could come in like a cancer and lead to sin. Not immoral action, as I understand it today, but something else called "sin" which I now think to be somewhat circularly defined.
So I'm in this strange place where information I find very useful today, information I wish more people had shared with me earlier in my life and discussed with me openly, is considered threatening by many people I care for. For me to share it publicly isn't a welcomed activity for them (though for others it might be). I've asked some to just hide my posts (or unfriend me) if those posts cause them harm, but what responsibility do you think I should take regarding what is shared or not shared? If my opinion is unpopular and many people might not agree with it, is it not worth sharing or does that make it all the more important to share so that either a) more people can convince me why I'm wrong and show me a better way of thinking or b) more people can change their thinking to something that might be more accurate, even if it's not popular?
These are challenging things to consider in our hyper-connected reality with memes transferring faster than viruses. We take care to protect others from a virus, more so if it can cause great harm. Information which impacts identity and directs actions can also be seen to spread like a virus. In some cases, information is destructive, in others it's the cure to much harm in the world. I think the same can be said for a belief in a divinely powerful god or the lack of that belief. History shows a lot of good and bad on both sides of that coin.
And yet, many are more concerned with how I didn't use a capital "G" when I said "god" in the previous paragraph. I know this because that was me as well. From birth, I was taught a certain way to do things and when my experience didn't align with that familiar way, the discord created was very uncomfortable. It's System 1 and System 2 thinking as described by Daniel Kahneman.
I don't really have a closing point here. I just wanted to write this all down and "think out loud" as I enjoy doing. I hope societies around the world move towards an open sharing of information and ideas which do not threaten individuals.