Nontheists are not empty vessels. This common assumption, while unique to nontheists, is derived from larger inferences made by religious believers. Denominational discrimination is quite well known, and interreligious discrimination is well documented. However, in my study of the microaggressions Christians use against nontheists, the participants expanded the category of “those who don’t believe in God” to include those who are believers but without the same theology. For instance, one participant referenced her grandmother when asked if she knew anyone who doesn’t believe in God. She went on to tell me that her grandmother believed in the Bible and even Heaven and Hell. In other words, her grandmother was Christian. What her grandmother lacked was sharing the participant’s belief of what brings about true salvation. For the participant, the consequences were the same; both her grandmother and nontheists were going to Hell. This participant was far from the only one to have this approach to categorizing “those who don’t believe in God.” Their point of view was dependent on a concept of what someone lacks. In this way, it was easy for participants to throw Christians and nontheists into the same bucket.
The desire to convert others (often referred to as Evangelizing in Christianity) is heavily ingrained in the theology of some. As seen above, adherence to the same theology can be paramount in regarding someone else as being of the same religion. The participant previously mentioned tried numerous times to convert her grandmother to Christianity—despite her grandmother objectively being Christian. In this instance, her attempts were additive. She wanted her grandmother to continue to believe in the Bible, Jesus, and Heaven and Hell. But in addition, wanted her to accept that the only way to get into Heaven was to repent. In essence, here was a sense of deficiency that needed to be addressed, but no need for the removal of beliefs. This is not the same for those in different faiths (or those of no faith).
People who try to convert others often don’t use words like eliminate or eradicate. Instead, they couch these outcomes in language that sounds non-threatening and even wholesome, such as share or teach. Some of my past participants (as well as friends and colleagues) have likened it to trying a new food or being exposed to a new type of entertainment. But faith (or no faith) is not like food or our favorite pop culture medium. Exposing someone to and fostering a love of the comic book world will not eliminate the same person’s adoration of British television, because they are not mutually exclusive. Someone can love comic books and British television shows at the same time. Different faiths can believe Jesus was a prophet; however, one cannot believe Jesus was both divine (Christian) and not divine (Muslim), as they are mutually exclusive. For a Christian to convert to the beliefs of Islam, they must first eliminate their belief that Jesus was divine and believe Jesus was not divine. In this instance, conversion isn’t additive; it is negative.
Simply put, people who want to convert others want to eradicate beliefs that don’t match their own. What is a much harder pill to swallow for some is to acknowledge a desire for supremacy. If a Christian desires to convert everyone to Christianity, it is the same as wanting the eradication of all other beliefs; they wish to rid the world of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. The same is true if an Atheist desires everyone to eradicate all of their religious beliefs; the creed is immaterial to the desire for supremacy. If one only wishes to convert those they come in contact with, they hope to eradicate all those whom they meet who are not of the same faith. This doesn’t sound very nice, nor is it a pleasant process. To be sure, this is not simply “sharing” or “teaching” your faith; this is the process of eliminating another’s faith.
Even if one concedes that instilling your beliefs in another requires elimination of their prior beliefs, this is not the same attitude towards nontheists. Here, it is viewed as a total absence in the broadest meaning. Again, one may concede that being a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/what-have-you likely involves a sense of identity, a worldview, and a moral framework tied to that faith. But that connection is less salient when it comes to nontheism. Nontheists are viewed as lacking a worldview or moral framework connected to their identity (regardless of whether that attachment to their nontheism identity is weak or strong). For those wishing to convert nontheists, conversion can only be additive as they assume there is nothing to eliminate. For a nontheist to become a believer of any type (Christian, Muslim, etc.), they would need to eliminate their own worldview, identity, and moral framework to replace it with a Protestant/Muslim/Catholic/etc. structure. Except, this notion often contradicts the unsubstantiated belief that nontheists are empty vessels. It is erroneous to assume that lacking a belief in a God (or Gods) equates to a lack of a worldview, identity, or moral framework.
While there has been a somewhat steady rise in the belief that nontheists can be moral without God, our media landscape still equates nontheism with deficiencies, ethical or otherwise. My recent research into the modernized British television show Father Brown is a rather clear example of the allusion to nontheists being empty vessels. For those who have never seen this BBC television show, it is set in the 1950s and centers around a sleuthing Catholic priest in a small village. The showrunners and writers of the BBC series are clear that it is not an adaptation of G. K. Chesterton’s works, but loosely based on the character. This has allowed the show to be more palatable to modern viewers who largely support gay rights and pluralistic societies. In the show, Father Brown is seen encouraging a lesbian love affair between two of his parishioners, inviting a Haitian Vudu adherent to stay and practice her faith at the presbytery, being nonjudgmental and magnanimous toward a cult, and compassionate and accepting of a gay man and his love interest. At no time is Father Brown shown trying to convert Catholics, Vudu practitioners, cult followers, Pagans, or any followers of other types of faith. The only time Father Brown is shown attempting to convert someone is if that person is a nontheist. The most egregious example of his attempts to eliminate nontheism is when a long-standing Atheist friend hid her diagnosis of a terminal illness because she didn’t want to spend her last days with Father Brown trying to convert her. Pray tell, what does Father Brown do when she confesses this to him in her last dying moments of life? He relentlessly attempts to convert her; her fears justified, and her wishes ignored. To Father Brown, any faith—even cult-based—fills the void that nontheism creates. In this way, it reinforces the belief that nontheists lack an identity, worldview, and moral framework.
Regardless of whether a person is of faith or no faith, in more humanistic terms, expressing a desire to convert someone is to say, “I really wish you weren’t you, and instead were someone like me.” It is by nature an expression of superiority (us), thus also a judgement of inferiority (them). As an American society, we often say the acceptance and celebration of our differences (plurality) is what unites us, or at least that is the aspiration. But the desire to convert another is quite the opposite of that goal. In this tumultuous time of rising fascism and a loud minority push toward white and Christian supremacy, we must learn to recognize the sectarian tendencies in ourselves and eliminate them. While our parents might have told us that sharing is caring, trying to convert another most certainly is neither.
Leave a Reply