For all of the logical fallacies and convenient assumptions of religion or any system of beliefs based on faith over reason, they have one advantage over a logical, scientific, and non-theist way of approaching the world.
This advantage is definition. Nearly any religion has a clearly defined sense of right and wrong, however archaic and misguided it may be, and from these definitions religious leaders can interpret how the world should be and what it is they are striving for. Atheist on the other hand are left to figure it out more or less for themselves, extrapolating from some sort of golden rule (such as “Don’t be an asshole”).
For example, ask twenty different atheists about capital punishment and they’ll probably give at least a dozen different answers for all sorts of different reasons. Go to the local pentecostal service or orthodox synagogue and the range of answers is likely to be a sight less diverse. Sure there’ll be a percentage among any congregation that disagrees with the organization on the finer points of policy, but that still doesn’t change the fact that they still give their time, their support, and most likely their money to that organization.
This single mindedness can be very unifying. This unity can be a potent social tool. Rallying around temples was one of the factors that led to the first cities being built in the fertile crescent. Since then, large groups of people united in purpose under the banner of religion operating with the absolute certainty that they are right have been a political and social force to be reckoned with.
My point is that religions by definition have a level of organization that atheism doesn’t come close to. While we can’t (and probably shouldn’t necessarily) be as homogenous in our values and philosophies, an important step towards greater unity is each and every one of us knowing what we believe, what we don’t, and why. Going further, how does this figure in to your picture of an ideal world? What is this world like? When do we win?
Unless these question can be answered, or are at least considered, any progress towards the truth, either on a social or personal level, can only go so far. It’s much harder to move forward without at least a vague idea of where one wants to go. Nearly all religions know where they’re going. They got off easy by getting the word from a higher power. We have a more troublesome, but ultimately more rewarding situation. We are left to pursue the truth borne not of faith, but of reason, science, and each other.
Loading ...
Very nice. This is definitely something that we need to work on–carving out naturalism as a robust and fully-functional alternative to supernaturalism is, I think, one of the most pressing problems facing modern secular philosophy, and it’s one in which I’m keenly interested. If anything, it seems to me that part of this articulation is going to rest on a rejection of the kind of teleology that’s evident in most supernatural worldviews: there’s no such thing as an ideal world, and there’s no such thing as “winning.” We should give up on that idea, both in the scientific sphere and in the social sphere–rather than some kind of asymptotic approach to an ideal Perfect System, we should focus on the notion of progress. Why is the system that we’re offering–naturalism–better than the system that they’re offering? What does it let us explain and accomplish that its competitors don’t? Why is today’s secular ethical system better than the system laid out in the Ten Commandments? What’s the function of ethics, and why does our system discharge that function better? These are the questions that we should be pursuing, I think. Great post!
The ability of a congregations leader to motivate his or her followers to political action exactly why state-sponsored religion is so dangerous.
To me the problem is that any group centered around a non-belief doesn’t bring with it any sense of immediacy to action. A call-to-arms in support of a non-belief is a very strange premise. In any decently run universe there would never be a need for such organizations. It’s like being part of a club that gets together to talk about how much we didn’t watch a baseball game that never happened.
Unfortunately, most of us tend to seek intellectual solutions for problems, but the difficulty in expressing our point of view to theists is emotive. We have an image problem, not an intellectual one. I feel the only real option is to demonstrate by example. Lead a good life, be successful, but never allow yourself to be shamed into not expressing your point of view. That will (perhaps ironically) win more simpathy than than continually hammering theists with arguements that the atheist viewpoint is better because it is more true.
You make a fine point, Jack. Richard just talked about this on the Infidel Guy show. He compared the struggle that atheists face for social legitimacy with the very similar struggle that gay people faced. The first step is to come out of the closet and the second step is to lead a good and ethical life. If we do those things, it becomes difficult for people who know an atheist to imagine us as agents of the devil.
Still, we may not yet be done with the “loud” portion of our activism; there is something to be said for that as well.