No not atheism, *anti-theism * described thusly.. It’s a unique perspective I never considered before, but given the European Jewish people’s experiences in WWII I can understand how some might come to this view.
Is it philosophically workable to sincerely believe in a Creator God, but believe that this God is mediocre, cruel and unworthy of admiration?
It’s philosophically workable. I remember asking in a thread around when I first joined whether there were any people who believed in a God but weren’t happy about that. I think generally there’s a lot of people who don’t like some things about their religion, but feel other stuff more than makes up for it. OTOH, I don’t know of anyone who believes in a god but feels them to be unworthy of worship, and, at the risk of incurring wrath, I’d suggest it’s because people want to be either comforted or awed by a god, not scared or despised.
Isn’t that the classical Gnostic position, that the Creator, the Demiurge, is evil?
Yes but the Gnostics still believed in another, ultimate, “good” God transcendent of time and space.
In answer to the OP, there’s nothing especially theologically unsound about a belief in a Creator God who is not good, it’s not just not very fulfilling. It lacks the psychological compensators afforded by most religions.
Hmmm, so instead of a philosophy that admires, loves and seeks assistance from God, this one disdains, hates and shuns interference from God. Yeah, that’s a really attractive way to spend my life!
Actually, I think I’ll just continue to try coping with what I know exists – a random world filled with events mostly beyond my control.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that such a belief is “not theism.” Why does one necessarily have to believe in a just, loving, and merciful God in order to be a theist?
If you took all the people throughout history who have believed in a Creator, you would find a wide range of beliefs about that Creator and his/her/its characteristics. There’s nothing particularly new or unusual in either questioning whether God is really good or claiming that God is not good: that God is either indifferent, or actually cruel and malicious. (“As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport.”)
From a practical standpoint, how would belief in a malicious God differ from atheism: what would you do differently?
And it seems to me that an “anti-theist” would have at least as much trouble with the Problem of Good (i.e. If the world was created by an evil creator, why do good and love and happiness exist?) as believers in a loving god do with the Problem of Evil.
Sounds theistic to me.
I’m not sure how it then directs one’s life, however. If you believe that there is a malignant force in (or outside) the universe that deserves your contempt, how does that affect your life? In what ways do you live differently?
It seems like a supportable philosophical position (resist calls to bless God or to carry out good works in His name–i.e., do good, but refuse to acknowledge God), but does not seem to be adaptable to a religious life. (Get together in an empty hall every Thursday afternoon and simultaneously drop drawers and moon the unseen entity?)
Of course it’s valid. Plenty of religions have had gods that were basically jerks, fools and sadists; the Greek/Roman pantheon is full of them, for example. In fact, people have used the Old Testament version of the Judeo-Christian God as an example of an evil god before; one you obey because he’s a sadistic megalomaniac with power, not because he’s admirable.
The only thing unusual is actually being hostile to the evil god(s) in question, rather than sucking up to it.
I can understand believing in a loving God who cares about you, or an angry God who will protect you from your enemies, but a God who hates you, personally, and wants you to suffer? The first two make sense, because it gives the illusion of comfort in the face of a hostile world. Who would want to follow a belief system that held the world to be more hostile than it really is? That’s not a theology, that’s a neurosis.
Unquestionably theist. I mean, the Viking Gods were not exactly the best guys either, and they were still Gods. I don’t get the “third way” talk. Atheists have lots of different attitudes about how the claimed Gods of others sound to them, but that doesn’t make there be a “fourth way” either.
Someone who regards the world as hostile, and wants to believe that it’s because of an entity that can be placated, and not mindless forces and creatures that cannot ? Especially someone who looks at the world and can’t convince himself a benevolent or even indifferent god is in charge.
Or simply someone whose been taught that’s what the god(s) are like. After all, it’s just an extension of normal life in ancient times; the people in charge are evil sadistic slavemongering bastards, who should be obeyed, placated and admired because they are in charge and have the power.
I think the point is to not give God worship.
Why is it when you’re an open atheist, you’re “militant,” as in that article? We’re not trying to kill people or take over countries; we’re just trying to keep religious fanatics from killing us and making us live according to whatever their religious books say we should do! But Dawkins and Harris, who nowhere condone violence or indoctrination, are invariably refered to as “militant atheists.”
Because it’s a double standard. After all, look at me; I’ve often been compared on this board to Fred Phelps, because I express hatred for religion on a message board. As opposed to Phelps, whose whole life revolves around his hatred of gays, and who does things like protest funerals.
To be blunt, America is a nation that hates atheists, and regards us as nearly the lowest of the low; maybe better than child molestors. but not by much. I’ve seen parents on national TV ( 60 minutes ) admit in front of cameras that they’d rather their child be dead than an atheist. So, anything we do or say is going to be slanted to look as bad as the speaker can make it.
If you identify said God with the Bible’s evil monstrous abomination of a Godfiend, that is not only possible, it is the only choice you can ethically make without surrendering all capacity of independent moral judgment.
That’s Scripture I’m talking about, which specifically claims the God of Israel actually did this or that. OTOH, it would almost certainly be fallacious to assume God’s existence but doubt God’s goodness based solely on visible human events – theists can always find a way around the Problem of Evil, so defined. Free will, you know. Just because he allows bad things to happen (as distinct from causing them), just because he lets us make our own mistakes, doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t love us.
“Militant” doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with violence; it just means aggressive or combative, which it’s fair to say Dawkins and Harris can be, against beliefs and practices they don’t believe in and think are harmful.
Or maybe it just means they’re still alive, analogously with the “Church Militant” 
.
Not in this case. Rosenbaum did not say that atheists were miltant. He (who appears to be, himself, either atheist or anti-theist) noted the recent phenomenon of atheists actually speaking out in the popular media to attack theism. Both Dawkins and Harris pretty clearly are doing just that. Whereas Sagan simply pointed out that we did not appear to require a god and Gould was willing to make accommodation with theists, (probably so that he could continue to participate in performing various choral pieces), Dawkins and Harris have both come out and claimed that theistic belief is foolish and should be abandoned. That seems to be a pretty militant position.
Now, that is not to deny your later point that atheists are feared (for some odd reason) and hated among large populations of the U.S., but there is no “double standard” involved when identifying the two specific authors mentioned as miltant.
By that definition, all preachers are “militant Christians,” all rabbis are “militant Jews,” etc., etc. Indeed, anyone who goes to church is “militant.” Speaking of or for religion is always seen as a Good Thing To Do. Speaking against religion is mean-spirited (as per a recent NYT editorial) and militant.
What I was trying to say. Another example; a common argument I’ve heard for religion ( including on this board ) is that all morality come from God, and that if we were not religious we’d all run around raping and killing and looting. Yet it’s not considered “militant” to imply all atheists are amoral predators.
Back on topic:
Before I was an atheist, I was an anti-theist (as defined by the above). I had been raised as a Christian, and at a certain point I began to question the doctrine. I came to a point where I still believed in God, but I felt He was basically a shithead. Actually, I still feel that way, to an extent; at this point I do not believe in God at all, but if there is a God, I hate Him. I would rather go to Hell than reside eternally in Heaven with the personage described in the Bible, and the deity that allows as much suffering and misery as there is in the world.
But, like I said, I don’t believe in God anymore, so it’s moot.