Hi All. I've recently embraced atheism fully, and like many converts I'm super jazzed about my new worldview. I'm enjoying reading and listening to the many intelligent thinkers on the subject -- Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett were my first gurus on this path -- but I've recently wondered about something that I haven't seen discussed much.
If we're going to criticize religions and faith-based ideologies, are Native/First Nations beliefs fair game? There are two things at play in my asking this question:
First, after talking to a friend of mine who's Cree about the nature of FN mythology, it sounds as if "religion" isn't really the right label for it. There is no do-or-die dogma and no series of rules with associated punishments for non-compliance; rather there are stories meant to explain the world and its inhabitants, and some suggestions for how one might live a better life. If there's a 'practice' involved in this belief system, it isn't organized in the same way that other faiths are (no regularly scheduled days and places for worship), though I imagine there are celebrations that take place under specific circumstances.
Second, and as often happens with Islam, questioning anything related to First Nations culture in a critical way is often automatically seen as racist by folks on the left -- which is where I generally locate myself.
Now, I don't give any more credence to FN origin stories than I do to those found in the bible or the torah or the koran, but I haven't heard any public atheists talking about the ridiculousness of a belief in a cosmic turtle who created the universe. Is that because native beliefs don't impact the world at large in the same way that the other big religions do (There are no Mohawks out there bombing temples and churches), and therefore they don't require our attention? Or is it actually the case that criticizing native beliefs would be too close to criticizing native *culture*, and that means crossing an unacceptable line?
Tell me what you think.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
First of all - it's Nice to be acquainted. Glad to have you here.
To your post - for one thing, Mythology is just that. Myth. It represents itself as a collection of stories. Indigenous beliefs of today are typically kept to themselves and do not seem to have a mission of manifest destiny. Indigenous mythology similarly is not used as justification for large scale war.
I will say that indigenous belief does flirt heavily with human right issues. Cannibalism & Female genital mutilation come to mind. Whether that is due to belief or overall culture is beyond me.
So I'd say No. Myth is just myth. Religion on the other hand is... yeah.
@augiebee: Well, first we have to consider what religion is, and from there see what goes into that definition and what not. In general, we approach the study of religions from three points of view: historical, theological-philosophical and anthropological.
From the first point of view we find religions that try to explain the natural phenomena, the animist religions and, generally, the oldest ones.
These types of religions also tend to try to control natural phenomena through magic: rain dance, rituals adapted to Taoism; religion as a way of overcoming fear of natural phenomena and death. When the animist religion goes from the mere explanation of the nature that surrounds us to the social organization, we find totemism. Following this reasoning, it isn't complicated, on an anthropological level, to glimpse in a reasoned way the clear evolution from animism to monotheism.
One thing. If, with the cosmic turtle, you refer to the Hindu cosmological explanation that the earth is flat, rests over four elephants and these on the shell of a tortoise, I will tell you that this cosmological explanation is born of the Brahmin philosophers and has nothing to do with religion, well, religion pulls it, but it isn't a religious vision in itself. We could compare it with the Chaldean cosmological explanation, and even find it in the Chinese Zhoubi suanjing. Perhaps it's one of the first examples of how religion adapts certain philosophical and / or scientific theories to its dogmas... poor Aristotle and Plato too.
Why as atheists we make a minor criticism to the animist religions? Well, If you have read Harris you will have realized that he sees the animist religions as a man way to rationalize nature, live in communion with her, integrate her into his increasingly reasoned world. Today we can see a return to that type of tradition in Wicca, the rebirth of the cult of Pachamama, or Earth, old traditions that, far from being religions, are ways of understanding the environment and nature... that I don't share, but that I seem quite innocent as beliefs, especially in front of organized religions and sects whose beliefs seek the subjugation and extortion of the human being.
The five nations, you call it Mohawk, are totemists. By the way, they were the first people of the Earth that had a national Constitution, Kaianere'kó wa, Great Law of the Peace of the Haudenosaunee Confederation.
The question is whether I, as atheist, find any reason to criticize someone's belief in thinking that his totem is a bear, or that the animistic representation of their clan is a wolf, a raven, or a fish. Does it look stupid to me? Of course, but at the same time, I don't see that one of the medicine men of the Oneida nation calling to the holy war, not even when the Apaches chiricahua was accused of done so was true.
And here we come to the bottom of the question. Do people have the right to have the beliefs they want? From my point of view, as a human being and atheist, of course. Another issue is that believers have no right to impose their beliefs on the rest of human beings. I neither see anyone from the Onondaga Nation chasing a woman down the street because she's going to have an abortion, or me for writing an article about totemism, or asking me to be imprisoned accused of blasphemy for thinking that having a totem is stupid.
Can we criticize animism and totemism? We must, as atheists, criticize, comment and explain these religious practices, but I don't see anything else.
Do you see anything else?
Is Mythology religion? Well, I would say that one thing is the myth, in the case of the catholic religion, Islam or the Jewish religion the celestial myth, whose origin is Egyptian, and another theological construction that is made around it... always in my point of view, of course.
I recently watched a documentary about human evolution. The very old bones of a Native child were in a museum. The Native people wanted the bones back so they could rebury they. Before they were returned a DNA sample was taken. The testing showed this child was related to an Asian group. The Native People had a creation myth that said they were uniquely created on this continent. They did not accept the scientific facts. Harmless, but still not rational.
A myth is just a Myth. It has no relation to Religion, for example, here's a myth from my country. This myth talks about how my Country and it's people earned it's name Shqipëtar/Albanian (sons of the eagle) -
There was this hunter who one day saw a snake nearing a eagle's nest, he quickly drew out his knife and cut the snake's head, the mother Eagle came back to the nest and saw that the Hunter was near the nest and mistook him for an aggressor.
But after noticing the birds "screaming" at her she understood that the Hunter helped her birds and so she said, in return for his deed: "I will give you my eyes to seek far beyond the horizon; I will give you my wings to fly above the skies; I will give you my claws, and your prey shall soon be food; I will give you my name, for your sons to carry on." - And so on, the Eagle served the Hunter and so did it's baby birds, and through that time the Hunter had become the leader of the tribes naming themselves Albanoi/Shqipëtar (sons of the Eagle).
- Now as you can see here, it has no relation to Religion, a Myth is nothing but a Myth, a story passed mouth by mouth through generations, each time receiving more or less "mythical" features.