Toto

1988 was still part a period in the US when academics routinely looked down on religious practice and belief, although they were usually not so vocal about it.

Times have changed. Believing Christians and Jews and Muslims have established themselves as being nice people who also vote and get into positions of power, and the new ideology is "tolerance," which means that it is no longer socially acceptable to describe anyone else's beliefs as "pathological." But I think that this is more a shift of political power than a change in the underlying reality.

Traditional religious beliefs are pathological; we usually don't say so anymore because there are people who claim to hold them and get very upset when their beliefs are criticized. But if you look carefully at modern believers, they tend to be rather different from the ones that Ellis was describing, who are like my pathological relatives from a generation ago.

Jagella

I suppose you might say that religion has been “humanized�? to some extent. The days of untrammeled religious violence and fanaticism are to a large extent over. That is, the outward expression of religious hatred is no longer socially acceptable in most civilized societies thanks largely to the criticisms of atheists. Unfortunately, however, much of the age-old bigotries are still there—they’re just under the surface.

Socially acceptable or not, I tell it like I see it.

Good evidence for this behavior can be found on many online forums, including Infidels. I remember experiencing this phenomenon when I was at http://challenging-atheism.com/. The moderator repeatedly complained whenever I criticized Christian beliefs. I suppose this atheist's biggest “challenge�? there was to avoid censorship!

In any case, upsetting people is perhaps what our society needs. All of the injustices in our society—from racism to anti-Semitism to segregating “disabled�? people and forcing them into poverty—are protected and perpetuated by our refusal to admit that these injustices are real. If one attempts to speak out against these injustices, then the people that commit them and benefit from them are oh so likely to get upset. They’re getting upset because they fear to have their dirty deeds exposed. So I say let them get upset; maybe that’s the only way we’ll ever change for the better.

I don’t know how much different they may be, but like I said earlier, on a superficial level, much of the religious hatred of the past is not as obvious. It’s still there, only deeper than most people may wish to look.

Jagella

Toto

Over? In these days of religious suicide bombers, faith based airplane hijackings, Christian nutcase, subversion. . . it's not over yet.

The fanatics are still there. But there are also more reasonable sounding people. Maybe the reasonable sounding people are just enabling the fundamentalists, providing cover.

Unfortunately, getting people upset gets them defensive and unable to hear what you are saying.

advancedatheist

I think the U.S. is close to a cultural tipping point in favor of the public criticism of religious beliefs. Otherwise it's hard to explain the traction the formerly obscure Sam Harris has gotten with his book The End of Faith (#168 on Amazon when I just checked), the message of which is nearly indistinguishable from countless books published by Prometheus over the years that have fallen dead-born from the press. It's as if Harris has stumbled onto a way to disable the internal censor that inhibits the religious skeptic in us all, thus helping others to articulate what they've found troublesome with traditional religious beliefs but were afraid to say openly.

Unfortunately the kooky ones are now organized politically and they have some retrograde agendas they want to enforce on the rest of us through the use of state power.

luvluv

So let me get this straight: Martin Luther King was pathological, but you guys are normal?

I'll take pathological every day of the week.

FWIW, most of the pathologies listed are only pathological when held in extreme degrees. Not to mention quite a few of the listed pathologies contradict each other (How can a self-sacrificing person be risk averse?), so they couldn't all apply to the same person. Further, whether for good or ill, the last thing you can say about today's Conservative Christians is that they've withdrawn from the world. One of them is the President of the United States, for Pete's sake. And he's not exactly a receding figure.

I haven't read the article, but that list is underwhelming.

Speaking personally, I don't think any of those attributes apply to me or most religious people I know. At least not to the point where we are actually psychologically unhealthy, which is what the term "pathology" here is supposed to mean.

Marduk

"Complete absense of self-sacrifice is also a pathology, you know..."

I think Seebs was referring to sociopaths, people with no feelings for others and who care ONLY for themselves. extreme greedy, lazy, gluttonous types.

advancedatheist

King had more in common with secular liberals than all the white christian crackers who supported segregation and white supremacy.

TheBigKahoona

Self Interest
Atheists see no logical reasoning for kind selfless actions and tend to be more selfish less charitable people.
Self Direction
Atheists have no clear authority in their lives so they have trouble finding direction and guidance.
Social interest
Atheists depend on copious amounts of interaction in order to "enhance" their social lives.
Self acceptance
Many Atheists are obsessed with themselves and feel little remorse for bad actions they may commit.
Flexibility
Many Atheists are extremely willing to accept the newest scientific theory, throwing out old thoughts and ideas despite their merits.
Tolerance
Many Atheists are extremely intolerant of religious belief because it questions the foundations of the science that their lives rest on.

Dont worry I think this list is as abserd as you do. I was just trying to compare the two.

luvluv

First off, I live in the South and there are plenty of secular racists down here.

At any rate, King was religious, so he must have been pathological according to this ridiculous list. And he's just the tip of the iceberg. There are multiplied millions of religious people in the world who are fully-functioning, productive, responsible, generous members of their community. The notion that a person is pathological simply by virtue of being religious is flat out dumb, and we all know personally examples that disprove this ridiculous notion.

sharon45

Maybe not pathological, but claimed christians can easily be extremely ignorant.