When getting into theology, there is a massive amount of works. Some are scholarly, while others are written for the general public. Some try to remain balanced, while others clearly have taken a side. Working through the mess can be quite challenging, which is why I’m creating this series.
I will be examining a number of books, and give them in-depth reviews, while also debating points that are off the mark. The first book in this series will be A Beginner’s Guide to Blasphemy by Richard E. Wackrow.
The book instantly jumps on the attack. The COEXIST message is hung up as if it were the mantra of religious apologists. What a religious apologist is, I’m not sure, as this is the first-time hearing of such. While I’ve heard of Christian apologists, they would not be the ones displaying these bumper stickers.
The COEXIST image was first created in 2000, by Piotr Mlodozeniec, who was a Warsaw, Poland, based graphic designer. It was created as part of an art competition that was sponsored by the Museum on the Seam in Jerusalem. This is a museum that focuses on “controversial social issues ” for public discussion.
Originally, the design was a play on the Abrahamic faiths, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, and the need for tolerance and understanding between the three. But since then, it has been adapted to include additional world religions and views, all the while keeping the same message: we must coexist peacefully.
By the time the image was being used on bumper stickers and the like, it was this later adaptation that was usually displayed. The image is simply all about peace, and coexisting with one another, meaning we have to have open discussions, and be okay with others who have different views, within reason. This is a message that has been adopted by many, including atheists.
But through this initial attack, we do find one of the underlying issues that we see in many books of this sort. Instantly, we are pointed towards Islamic fundamentalism as an example of how we know religions can’t get along together. What this sort of argument always misses though is that fundamentalism, in general, is only ever a small minority within a religion. Yet they tend to get all the coverage by anti-theists.
Interestingly enough, once we get past an explanation of the COEXIST symbol (which is the later adapted one Wackrow is speaking of), there is a lament that no atheism symbol is included. Wackrow makes the claim that in both the COEXIST imagery and the later Tolerance bumper stickers, atheists aren’t represented and suggests maybe they were left out because the designers thought that atheists “can’t possibly be good or tolerant.”
Yet, a quick Google search will pull up other COEXIST imagery with various atheist symbology. Part of the issue is that there is no official symbol for atheism. What the COEXIST symbols do have though, and even more seen in the Tolerance imagery, is that humans in general are represented.
For instance, the Peace Symbol isn’t tied to one religious group, but simply represents peace. This imagery also often features the signs for man and woman, again promoting peace among all. Additionally, Einstein’s famous equation, e=mc2 is also featured, which is meant to signify science.
Coincidentally, one of the leading signs for atheism is the atomic whirl, another piece of imagery showcasing the connection of atheism and science.
The major flaw with Wackrow’s argument here though is that he seems completely unaware of the history of the symbol, and instead only focuses on the later adaptations. And because of this ignorance, he then follows this all up with a logical fallacy, an ad hominem, claiming that the original designer obviously didn’t know much about religious doctrine. Yet Wackrow makes that claim without ever even dealing with the original design.
However, possibly the biggest shortcoming of this opening chapter is that he has fundamentalism so thoroughly in his crosshairs that he ignores the vast majority of religious views. Wackrow makes the claim that it’s a fact that “each religion claims to be the one and only true religion,” but this is far from being a fact. Instead, religion can be categorized in three ways.
First, there is the inclusive view, where, yes, the believers believe their way is the only way. Then there is the exclusive view, where one believes there is something unique about their position, but they don’t deny that there is a possibility of salvation for others. Finally, there is the pluralist view, which accepts that one way may work for me, but it may not work for you. That there are many paths.
The exclusive and pluralist views (with more leaning towards pluralism) are the views that are dominating within scholarship and within mainstream colleges and seminaries. The inclusive view exists, but is largely restricted to fundamentalists.
This is something many anti-theists miss. They are so focused on the loud and intolerable sections of a religion, while they ignore the majority elsewhere. If this work was simply against fundamentalists, his argument would hold up better.
Just a final point. At the end of the chapter, Wackrow misses a key point in human interaction, even though he briefly touches on it. He mentions in and out groupings, which can and do produce many issues, but he ties them to religion.
He then ends the chapter by mentioning how a bumper sticker won’t rid the world “of religious motivated intolerance, hate, genocide, murder and war,” What Wackrow misses though is that in and out groups in general, whether they are based on religion, or some other type of identifier, produce those same evils.
The tendency for people to group ourselves is something that is ingrained in us through the evolutionary process. It helped our ancestors survive, and can still do so. We all belong to a variety of groups, and we have a tendency to see those outside of our groups as others. It’s this process that causes so much turmoil.
Now, I wouldn’t fault Wackrow for opening his book in this manner. It’s meant to lay somewhat of a framework, and background to the rest of the book. It raises some interesting points, but I think the main points are a bit forced.