Jacobus Altus

SecularFuture:

You wrote - "Instead of sitting on my ass hoping for change (like a religious theist), I try to get involved. Nothing is going to change unless we want, and fight for change."

I very much disagree with evangelistic atheism. Were I to start harping on my acquaintances to adopt my non-beliefs, I would be the worst kind of hypocrite: one adopting the very tactics of the theists. Many of them, by the way, are off their duffs and actively proselytizing the young and the distressed in our society, and lobbying some of our lickspittle legislators to co-opt the resources and authority of the state in their effort to convert the world.

Besides avoiding hypocrisy, evangelical atheism is simply unworkable or unnecessary for two reasons.

1) If you wish to impose atheism, look at the history of such attempts from the French Revolution onward. They all failed miserably to stamp out theism by authoritative means. Co-opting the authority of the state, by the sword or otherwise, does not work in modern times, though theists have made some (hopefully) temporary inroads with the connivance of the present US administration.

2) The Western world is in an epochal transition: we are finally shrugging off religion after 30,000+ years of blind submission to the priestly class who heretofore supposedly intervened with the gods on our behalf. In the US, those identifying themselves as Christians of one type or another will become a minority in the next few decades. (See http://www.religioustolerance.org.) That trend in the US is lagging Canada and some European nations by a decade or two.

My view is that superstition has almost run its long course. The thought process that has placed reason and critical thinking over the cradle-learned, faith-and-hope bases for judging the truth of a proposition or of what constitutes reality has finally won, after many millennia. The demise of superstition in its various forms (religion, mediums, tarot readings, palmists, faith healers, etc) will marginalize religion in the next few decades, an epochal transition in the society of humans. [I would note that saying the current precipitous decline of religion in the West is 'historic' would be a vast understatement, since religion existed far into prehistory. Hence, I prefer to characterize religion's decline as 'epochal' rather than 'historic'.]

You may well ask what drives this epochal transition from superstition to reason? My answer would be complex.

First, the wide publication (late 1400's) of the Bible. Gutenberg's invention of the printing press enabled the literate to read the entire Bible. Those few 15C literate folks, maybe 3-5% of the European population, could then question why God ordered Joshua's several genocides, or why God Himself was a Genocide in the Noahic flood. Those along with dozens of other 'hard questions' (like the Problem of Evil) implicit in the Bible were almost completely ignored in ministerial preaching to a mostly illiterate populace of the time. The few 15C literates then could question the 'teachings' of the Bible because the printing press made it available to them.

Secondly, the advent of near universal literacy in the late 1800's let the uncognoscenti (if that’s a word), the rest of us, into the game. Where and when allowed, a common person finally had the access and skill to read the Bible and its many criticisms. E.g.: 'Why Am I Agnostic?' by Robert Green Ingersoll c 1890.

Lastly. The Internet, arriving on society’s doorstep about a century after the advent of universal literacy, makes dissenting views available worldwide to those who are literate. Take this forum as an example.

Religion is marginalizing itself in our lifetime. Just sit back and watch, unless directly attacked, is my advice. Critical thinking is eliminating superstition passively with every word (well, most words) published on this forum. The influence of the priestly class is dying of its own accord after 30,000+ years of preying on ignorance; witness the pedophile scandal among the Catholics, or the antics of the Prostentant televangalists advocating ‘prosperity theology’ while asking for your credit card number. There is no need to evangelize atheism by emulating the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

If you really wish to direct your effort somewhere, I would suggest that evangelizing atheism would be a bad choice. Instead, I would advocate that you work to promote critical thinking instruction into the middle and high schools. This instruction, usually found in the philosophy department of a college at the sophomore level, could easily be taught much earlier in a student's career.

Best, Jacobus Altus

Toto

Jacobus Altus:

While I agree with some of what you say about the ineffectiveness of evangelism, I have to disagree with your rosy view of the future. The idea that science, reason, and critical thinking would lead to the demise of religion was popular in the early part of the 20th century, but hasn't been heard of much of late in the US, as we've seen religion, cults, and pseudoscience of various types undergo an explosive growth.

In fact, I would argue that "faith in reason" had its high point around 1910, and declined as World War I started to undermine Europeans' confidence in the ability of rationality to govern world affairs; kept going down as the world sank into depression and then another world war; and has never recovered.

Another blow to reason is that it has never really come to terms with capitalism. American capitalism is driven by advertising, which discovered empirically at an early stage that people respond to emotional arguments and not reasonable ones.

But American churches are flourishing because they have embraced capitalism and are using advertising effectively. (There are other reasons, but those are biggies.)

American religious conservatives even try to appropriate the prestige of science. They claim to use "critical thinking" and they claim there is a "scientific" objection to Darwinism or to abortion or other aspects of modern life that upset their received traditions. If they keep repeating their message to a captive audience, they are going to block the reception of true critical thinking.

Rationalism, however, has only a few small underfunded organizations to speak out for critical thinking, skepticism, or non-belief.

No one is advocating that atheism be imposed by government regulation. That doesn't work.

But Secularists / Rationists / Whatevers should at least be able to use the same communication technicques that have made the religious so powerful, which you might call "evangelism."

So I would not advocate that you harp on your friends and relatives, or go door to door asking if people have lost Jesus. But I would hope that you would stick up for the non-believing viewpoint, in whatever way you think is most effective. And consider contributing to the organizations that promote skepticism, critical thinking, and non-belief.

Defiant Heretic

I think the trick is fighting people who try and impose religion where it has no place, like in science classrooms, but letting people believe whatever they want to as long as they extend us the same courtesy.

EverLastingGodStopper

When Theists Attack...

From the penalty for breaking the First Commandment (2 Chronicles 15:13 "...whoever would not seek Yahveh, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.") to the June 14, 1954 Congressional violation of the First Amendment, (On June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 1972 to add the words "under God" after the word "Nation." Pub. L. No. 396, Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) ("1954 Act") when has there been a time when non-theists were not attacked?

How much work is the religious right doing to include the godless in their vision of America? One Nation Under .... what? With leaders like PA Senator Rick Santorum and US President George W Bush, do you really feel like you aren't under attack?

I hope no one mixes us church-state separation supporters in with those neo-atheists who claim to "deconvert theists" or otherwise seek to "evangelize atheism." The only "God" I'm "Stopping" is the one in the US Government.

Fighting theism is a waste of time. Fighting theocracy, however, is my duty as an American.

Jacobus Altus

Toto:

Thanks for the interesting comments and criticism of my post about the marginalization of religion. I especially enjoyed your discussion of the "faith in reason" movement around the turn of the last century. Is it the equivalent (or allied) to the scientific determinism of the time?

You wrote:

"...as we've seen religion, cults, and pseudoscience of various types undergo an explosive growth." And later, "...American churches are flourishing..."

Hmmm... My 'rosy' view is predicated on several large-scale (low sampling error) surveys about a decade apart; the last was conducted c 2001. They were called ARIS and NRIS or somesuch and their summaries are published somewhere in http://www.religioustolerance.org's labyrinth. They show about a 10% decline in self-identified Christians over the decade in the US, and note that the decline follows similar ones in other Western nations, like Canada. The sampled populations also about doubled in the selection rate for 'none of the above' religious affiliations.

So, we disagree on a factual matter. I've cited my sources. Would you kindly cite yours for "undergoing explosive growth" and "American churches are flourishing" ?

Best, Jacobus Altus

Toto

You're right that surveys show an increasing number of self-identified "non-religious", but I believe that these are people who were not very religious to start out with. I am basing my "explosive growth" comment on subjective experience: I observe that the Religious Right has been successful as part of Bush's coaltion, and has the ear of the president; that judges are being appointed who favor eroding the wall of separation between church and state.

I also see a growth in mega-churches. The business of religion is thriving. See this marketing company profiled on the Newswire:

Kingdom Ventures, Inc.

I also see more people who twenty or thirty years ago would have nothing to do with religion now turning to churches. Sometimes (maybe often) that is for social reasons, but they are still giving their money to churches.

The situation is different in Europe, where churches are being deserted, and are finding new uses. In the US, there are lots of zoning controversies as mega-churches buy up land and try to build in residential areas. This tells me that they are growing.

The Republican Party right now is a strange coaltion between Libertarians and Christian Rightists, who would seem to have little in common. The Libertarian faction is kept in the Party with the claim (often whispered) that the Christians are not to be taken seriously, and will not be allowed to actually infringe on American freedom. I think this is dangerous thinking.

Jacobus Altus

Toto:

Just please cite sources for your argument about 'explosive growth' of religion. Your 'Kingdom' whatever link was just an advertisement.

And just from curiosity, why do you use the verb 'believe' and why do you prefer subjectivity to objectivity in your last post?

Best, Jacobus Altus

Toto

Jacobus -

I'm just carrying on the conversation; I don't have research data at my fingertips. That's why I emphasize that I am basing my statements on my own subjective observations and what's happening on the national political scene. I think that my observations are worth at least as much as raw data about a percentage of respondents who answer a certain way on a survey. I don't have the time right now for a more researched response.

Your first post on this topic said that religion was marginalizing itself, based on trends over the last 500 years. My own observations over the last 20 years are that religion is hanging on and growing in organizational strength, and that atheism has become marginalized. I think it is very dangerous to think that you can just sit back and watch religion wither away.

Jacobus Altus

Toto:

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation. I apologize for my crotchety tone; I was thinking that the large-scale ARIS and NRIS religious affiliation surveys had been discredited, and that my observations on the marginalization of religion would then be discredited too.

Though I failed to mention that I agree with most of your subjective observations, particularly those involving the collaboration of the Bush administration with the religious right, I will hold to my original conclusion that religion is marginalizing itself.

To continue our interesting, impromptu discussion. ---

You observed, “...religion is hanging on and growing in organizational strength...”. I can certainly agree that the religious right is growing in its ability to organize. Ralph Reed’s many successes are prime examples. But does organizational sophistication and success really translate to a rise, or even a ‘hanging-on’, in the fraction of theists in our population? [‘Fraction of theists’ would be the best measure, and one probably even agreed to by Christians who are out to convert everyone: 100% of a population.] Especially when considering the NRIS-like surveys? I think not. Loud and temporarily influential religious groups in the short term? Yes. In the long haul? No.

You also said, “I think it is very dangerous to think you can just sit back and watch religion wither away.”

Well, those weren’t quite my words. I support actively resisting First Amendment erosion by the Bible thumpers. E.g.: I have questioned my local candidates for the school board about their views of letting ‘creationism’ or ‘intelligent design’ into the public school science curricula to prevent a repetition of the Kansas fiasco in my locality . I support promulgation of knowledge (as opposed to belief) in general, and the passive spreading of non-theistic viewpoints, like on this fine forum. I would resist any activist atheistic actions, like imitating theists who constantly assail the First Amendment, knocking on doors like the Mormons, or trying to appropriate public funds to spread atheism. Those actions would make us hypocrites, in my view.

As to my view being ‘dangerous’. Hmmm... Who or what is the victim? Atheism or theism? Or some other? I consider my view just pragmatic. I think that the partial-population of theists is in decline, and that we atheists would be well-advised to continue our attitude of dignified dissention to the religious majority while it collapses under its vast history of superstition and ignorance.

Besides my ‘marginalization of religion’ observation, we may be well be at odds over the semantics of what comprises ‘active atheism’. Perhaps my take is too literal? Maybe the originator of the thread could clarify?

Your thoughts? I look forward to your reply.

Best, Jacobus Altus

Toto

Jacobus:

Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. And my thoughts are not very coherent.

I think that some of the tactics of American Atheists have not been productive, such as the activist who described prayer meetings as "Christian terrorism."

But I think that if thoughtful atheists continue to be dignified and reserved, they will watch religion grow and corrupt the society, until they are crowded out of public discourse, and Americans will assume that they have to have a religion of some sort for social survival, as American politicians do now. That is the danger.

I wish I knew the solution. I belong to Atheists United, the Council for Secular Humanism, and a few other organizations. There are a lot of intelligent people in those organizations, but no genius political strategists.

Perhaps it will clarify my perspective if I tell you my story.

I was raised a religious schizophrenic. I was baptized at 6 months in the local Methodist church and went to Sunday school. But when I started to take the Sunday school lessons seriously, my father left a copy of The Golden Bough lying around the house, open to the relevant pages, to let me know that a) no one in our household really believed that stuff but b) it was not to be talked about.

I was devastated that the adults in my life had misled me for so many years, but I assumed that this was one of those grown up secrets that I was now in on, even though it could not be discussed, like so many other adult things. I assumed that all intelligent grown ups were in on this social hypocrisy, except for the "holy rollers", who were too uneducated and marginal to count for anything.

As I moved on to college in the 60's, everything I saw bore this out. Religion was mostly an empty shell or an obvious fraud. (My family spent some time and effort to keep older senile relatives from leaving their money to the local preachers who preyed on them.) It seemed that the main use for religion was to support college coffee houses and left wing activists (like the Berrigan brothers.) I figured that the religious activists I knew had made a leap of faith into the unknown, and at the time I admired them for it. They must know this secret that all of the grown ups were in on, that their religion was based on a lie, but still they sacrificed material comfort to dedicate themselves to humanity, like Jesus. (Later, years of therapy convinced me that sacrificing oneself for others is usually a sign of pathology, not a good model of human behavior.)

At that point if you had said that religion was withering away, I would have believed you. I read existentialist writers, and they did the best they could to find a living core in religion, but they seemed stuck in the European malaise connected to the two world wars, and didn't seem to have anything to say to the modern world of American prosperity.

But then lots of things happened. The Catholic Church put a stop to Liberation Theology and shut up some of the more interesting priests and thinkers. Most of the religious liberals of my college years were socialists, and socialism became increasingly irrelevant as the American economy expanded. Many of my friends from college were secular Jews who didn't talk about Judaism. But once they started having children, they seemed to feel a need to reconnect with their history.

And, unknown to me at the time, Jerry Falwell was dragging those southern holy rollers into the 20th century. Children from fundamentalist backgrounds were going to college and hanging onto their strange beliefs, finding ways to justify them, rather than giving in to the modern world. Religious believers took advantage of the principle of tolerance to argue for tolerance of themselves on college campuses.

Then, on top of that, everyone and his dog seemed to find out that drug or alcohol addiction was the most important issue in their lives, and the consensus was that rationality was no aid - you had to submit to a higher power. In fact, rationality seemed to be of little help in what mattered most at the time – love and work.

Psychology and psychiatry used to substitute for religion, but those disciplines have not stood up to scientific scrutiny themselves. Freud had thought of religion as a form of mental illness, but his theories are generally viewed as history. Health plans have stopped funding psychotherapy in favor of pharmaceuticals.

In general, it seems that, instead of withering away, religious leaders are finding new ways to market their existence, from the hard to the soft sell. When I wonder how people can actually believe that stuff, I remember that some of the most highly educated and privileged students of my generation thought that planting a few bombs or robbing a bank would bring on the revolution and the end to American imperialism. Others tried to levitate the Pentagon with chanting. I also remember that American advertising convinced generations that smoking was cool even when science showed that it was just stupid, that we should eat artificial food, that we should pay extra for soap because it had a brand name, etc. So perhaps it is not surprising that seemingly intelligent modern people can now fall for Scientology or Bill Bright or Josh McDowell.

Religion is going to survive because of economics. Churches have money to promote themselves because they get people to give the money, and people who die leave money to the church. They have to do something with the money to perpetuate the racket, so they market their religion. And the First Amendment protects them from government interference or truth in marketing laws. The richest man in America is an atheist – Bill Gates. But he has set up a foundation to give his money for charitable purposes, to combat AIDS, for minority scholarships, etc. I am not aware that he has given any money to further atheism or the separation of church and state. In contrast, many members of the economic elite are members of churches, and they give their money to churches or to foundations that promote religion. The Templeton Foundation is pouring money into studies that purport to show some scientific basis for religion – most of it is flakey and relatively harmless. The Ahmanson Foundation has funded Christian Reconstructionism and other far-right believers in theocracy, not so harmless. No one is funding secular think tanks.

And as the right wing dismantles government funded social services, people have to turn to churches for support.

And the problem is, religion seems to work (if you don’t take it too seriously). There is no survival value to not believing in god, and lots of social drawbacks. There are some instances where taking a rational view of the situation is the best strategy, but many others where people with irrational beliefs will win out, because they have the advantage of their form of self hypnosis, because they have the support of their fellow cult members, or for whatever reason. So they become economically successful, and give more money to their churches. And so it goes.