Classical Values :: An Unkulunkulu atheist vows never to be out-atheisted again!

April 29, 2008

An Unkulunkulu atheist vows never to be out-atheisted again!

Unkulunkulu?

That name leaped out at me as I read John Derbyshire's Pajamas Media piece about atheism and science. Discussing some fascinating correspondence with author David Berlinski, he takes issue with what he calls Berlinski's "vague notion that atheism is a sort of religion -- "a doctrine," you say -- that people sign on to, perhaps after undergoing some formal instruction from a properly ordained minister."

Possibly it does take that form in some individuals, but far more often it is merely an indifference to supernatural explanations, on the part of people who find natural explanations sufficiently interesting. As one of those atheistical book authors says -- Hitchens, I think it is -- an atheist just believes in one fewer god than you. He is an atheist in respect of Yahweh in just the same way, and for just the same kind of reason, that you are an atheist in respect of Unkulunkulu.

What is your problem with Unkulunkulu, David? Why are you not willing to accept his mighty power? Are you secretly, in your inner heart, one of those arrogant atheists? Well, of course, so far as Unkulunkulu is concerned, you are!

This worried me, as I'm someone who believes in God, but in a fuzzy, generalized deist sense. While these various arguments over the unknown intrigue me, I often wish people would not get so worked up over them. Until today, I never really grappled with whether I'm an individual atheist where it comes to specific deities.

I must confess, though, that I never believed in Unkulunkulu:

Unkulunkulu is the creator god and great ancestral spirit of the Zulu people. Unkulunkulu is believed to have grown on a reed in the mythical swamp of Uhlanga. In the isiZulu language, the name means "the very great/high one". According to tribal myths, he took the form of half-man / half-tiger having a human torso and lower body, but with a lion-like face and claws. It is said that he came down from the sky to fight an Evil Demon in South Africa and won against the Demon on a No Moon Day.

I'm unable to find any depiction of this deity anywhere. A diligent search failed to turn up a single image, whether of a totem, statue, or picture.

The most commonly accepted deity in the American cultural tradition is of course the great, apparently bearded deity described here:

It is probable that Yahweh was at one time worshiped by various tribes south of Palestine, and that several places in that wide territory (Horeb, Sinai, Kadesh, &c.) were sacred to him. The oldest and most famous of these, the mountain of God, seems to have lain in Arabia, east of the Red Sea. From some of these peoples and at one of these holy places, a group of Israelite tribes adopted the religion of Yahweh, the God who, by the hand of Moses, had delivered them from Egypt.[49]

[...]

Scholars in the 19th century discussed over what sphere of nature Yahweh originally presided. Some recognized in him a storm god, a theory with which the derivation of the name from Hebrew hawah or Arabic hawa well accords (see also the Book of Job chapters 37-38). The association of Yahweh with storm and fire is frequent in the Old Testament. The thunder is the voice of Yahweh, the lightning his arrows, and the rainbow his bow. The revelation at Sinai is amid the awe-inspiring phenomena of tempest. Yahweh leads Israel through the desert in a pillar of cloud and fire. He kindles Elijah's altar by lightning, and translates the prophet in a chariot of fire. See also Judg. v. 4 seq.. In this way, he seems to have usurped the attributes of the Canaanite god Baal Hadad. In Ugarit, the struggle between Baal and Yam, suggests that Baal's brother Ya'a was a water divinity - the god of Rivers (Nahar) and of the Sea (Yam).

(Michelango's portrait is probably the best known portrayal -- so widely known that I don't see any need to upload it here. Does it constitute a prohibited graven image?)

Then, of course, there's Allah, said to be the Moon God. I'll upload his picture -- not because I think it's accurate, but just to demonstrate that I still live in a free country where graven images are not prohibited.

(Like I should care whether Allah -- or any other High Deity -- had origins with the Moon God.)

This all touches on my ongoing problem, which is that I see no contradiction between monotheism and polytheism. That's because I have no problem with polytheism, as I think that once you presuppose a deity, then there's no reason why there would have to be only one. God could do anything he wants, including reproduce. If God saw fit to make man, angels, a son, a devil, then what's the problem?

While polytheism is not necessarily at war with monotheism (because of the possibility of different manifestations of the god-spirit-deity to many people in many times and places) I have long seen monotheism as more at war with polytheism than the other way around, because it insists upon a limitation on the dimensionality of spiritual forces -- usually according to the demands of a particular deity.

Nothing new there, except that Derbyshire has now forced me to entertain what might be considered a provocative if not mean thought.

Are monotheists more atheistic than polytheists?

According to simple math, they may well be, because they disbelieve in more, and believe in fewer.

It's scary, because I've been called an atheist for not being a monotheist. It never occurred to me that the accusers were more atheistic than I.

Derbyshire is a bad influence.

Read it all.

posted by Eric on 04.29.08 at 02:03 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6589

Comments

One of the problems here is with the term "god". Take Zeus/Jupiter in the Greco-Roman myths. Z/J is top god surrounded by lots of other gods. But Jupiter is created. So god in this sense means a powerful supernatural being but not "God" supreme and uncreated. Hinduism also has many gods but is also at its core is monotheistic. I suspect most polytheism is similar. Lots of "gods" but at the end of the day there is an uncreated "God". Some commentators note that angels and saints fill the role that minor gods do the polytheism. Sunni Muslims are fiercely monotheistic but even their supernatural is filled with djinns and houri. At the end of the day believers will usually have some concept like Anselm's - God is the being of which nothing is greater.

ctb · April 29, 2008 02:47 PM

God is the product of man's capacity for creating meaning in a meaningless world. Belief in god is an anti-intellectual comfort.

Dennis · April 29, 2008 03:26 PM

Atheism is a religion in the sense that atheists think they are privy to a deep mystical truth--that there are no deep mystical truths. Every other belief is false. It is as dogmatic a belief system as any.

What atheists think they are, agnostics actually are.

tim maguire · April 29, 2008 04:04 PM

What a quandry. Do I upset the God of Jacob and Isaac? Or, do I upset other gods, of whatever multitude or number? (And do I need repudiate an individual god explicitely, or is that repudiation implicit?)

Oh, and Dennis? Your comment requires an Erich Fromm moment. Do yourself a favour, please. Quit looking at religion as a bad thing that needs to be stamped out, but representative of man's view of god. It can be a wonderfully metaphorical comfort.

OregonGuy · April 29, 2008 04:09 PM

One of the charges leveled against the early Christians was atheism, because they didn't believe in the Roman pantheon. When Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was martyred c. AD 160, his persecutors tried to make him say, "Away with the atheists," referring to his fellow Christians. Instead he said, "Away with the atheists," while pointing to the pagan crowd (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9.2).

In that time and place, a Christian was an atheist for believing in too few gods. Or a pagan was an atheist for not believing in the Christian god. Not much has changed. I'm a Christian but the Muslims consider me an infidel. Oh, well.

Let's agree to restrict the term "atheist" to those who are thoroughly convinced that nothing, and no one, supernatural exists. Otherwise the term becomes nothing more than a pejorative.

notalawyer · April 29, 2008 04:16 PM

Let's agree to restrict the term "atheist" to those who are thoroughly convinced that nothing, and no one, supernatural exists. Otherwise the term becomes nothing more than a pejorative.

notalawyer · April 29, 2008 04:17 PM

Let's agree to restrict the term "atheist" to those who are thoroughly convinced that nothing, and no one, supernatural exists. Otherwise the term becomes nothing more than a pejorative.

notalawyer · April 29, 2008 04:17 PM

Derb has become increasingly unhinged on the subject of religion. Let's obligingly take his argument and show that the same logic that can be used to show that "MONOTHEISTS - 1 = ATHEISTS" can also be used to show that "RATIONALISTS - 1 = POSTMODERNISTS".

After all, postmodernists simply believe in one fewer objective realities than rationalists...right? So maybe Derb is only one step away from being a complete relativist, where scientific truth is just another point of view?

David Hecht · April 29, 2008 04:38 PM

Actually, I think blog is the product of man's capacity for creating meaning in a meaningless world.

Eric Scheie · April 29, 2008 09:43 PM

If there were no God, there would be no atheists - GK Chesterton

atheling · April 29, 2008 10:03 PM

Right atheling, and if there were no Eric? I would just be sitting home on a Tuesday night and rolling my eyeballs FAR back into my head.

Good man that Eric.

Can we make him God?

Penny · April 30, 2008 03:01 AM

Sorry about the multiple post earlier. I don't really think my words are so profound that they need to be tripled.

notalawyer · April 30, 2008 10:07 AM

Actually, in the Christian concept of the universe, there are many beings which might be called Gods in the classical sense like the Romans or Greeks. In fact, every human being is fundamentally an awesome semi-divine creature. So in that sense, I know of billions of Gods existing right around here, not to mention what other supernatural beings there are. We Christians don't know all of what exists, although we generally don't believe that too many have had contact with us.

Patrick · April 30, 2008 12:02 PM

My frustration with many of the arguers, both pro- and con-, is that their bald assertions, delivered so emphatically, are divorced from a complicated conversation that they just can't be bothered to learn about.

I have spent a lot of time over the years on these issues, and people smarter than I have spent more of their lives in contemplation of these things. I conclude that folks like Dennis must be either too lazy or too fearful to face opposition. You (plural, not just Dennis) don't need me, or other commenters on a blog that deals more with political and social issues and touches on religious issues only as a sideline. Eric's post is an entertaining angle on a standard subject. If one wants to comment on the fresh angle, fine. But if what people want is to pontificate about the standard subject, I suggest they do a modicum of homework before spouting off. Intelligent framings of the topic are easily available.

It sounds rather like teenagers calling in to sports radio to argue, frankly.

Assistant Village Idiot · April 30, 2008 05:30 PM