purplerat wrote:Your own argument has been that mass delusion is bad - which I agree with.
Uhm, I don't know if mass delusion would be a correct term.
But no. Delusions are not intrinsically 'bad'. It's a part of being human. A normal human being can be delusional for a number of reasons, like the love for her a child, might not allow her to see him as guilty of a crime a jury conclusively decided he is the culprit of. Education, how big of an IQ you posses doesn't shield you from the power of delusion.
We live in a meaningless world, the idea that truth is intrinsically linked to the good is a fiction. I knew a family coming to grips with a brutal murder of a son. It was a cruel card that life dealt them. The delusion of believing that they'll see him again, that the mother will one day be reunited with her young boy, may not have resolved the anguish, but it helped to numb the pain a little. That's life, it's a privileged beauty for some, and a cruel and dark corner for others. We do what we have to, to come to terms with it.
Human emotions are highly volatile, and we often cling to delusions to contain them.
I'm not speaking of all delusions, but a particular sort of delusion, a delusion that is birthed by our anger, a delusion that leads to victimizing. It's a delusion that leads us to scapegoat an entire group of people, because of the actions of a few, where that entire groups becomes the object of our anger.
This delusion, has some 'good' things coming out of it as well, like this community, best selling books, conventions, getting people to come out and identify themselves as a part of this community. Scapegoating united an entire german society, brought them out of the despair of a depression, and renewed their hope through a violent delusion.
Here it gave a marginal group a voice.
It can be argued the delusion even here is a good thing, it can be argued it's a bad thing as well. I sort of stand on the fence here.
On one side it provides a sense of community, allowed many to make new friends, to not feel so isolated, on the other side we have the coin that feeds in group out group mentality, that sees groups that don't belong to their brand as inferior. Dawkins speaks of world where all that secularist value is under attack, and that it's time for the courageous atheist to go on the attack as well.
Historically, such a crusading spirit for rationalism and enlightenment thinking, that it has to be fought against a formidable enemy ends up in cruel violence. Violence becomes the option when all else seems to fail. This has nothing to do with rationalism or enlightenment thought at all, or even a belief that everyone should be rational and value enlightenment thinking, but rather it's fueled by the anger and resentment for those who don't share your ideology.
It's one thing for someone to believe that their christianity is true, and that other worldview are false, so we go knocking on people's door and talk to them about Christianity, it's another thing to go knock on their doors and express how much you hate them, and can't stand them for not being Christians, or in its most extreme form," convert or die".
Yet there are certain things that are currently absent that doesn't link this sort of atheistic movement, to the violent movements of the past. One is that they abhor violence, but this has less to do with the group being above it, and more to do with group being privileged to not be familiar with their own violence. Secondly much of this anger is rather closeted, it exists in the halls of the internet, and some selective venues. It's sort of like the racism that exists in xbox live headsets, it's the anger of anonymity. So those you resent by in large don't care too much about you, mainly because you occupy a planet they've never visited. You probably going to find the word Atheist in a typical evangelical church service is less likely to be associated with Richard Dawkins, but more likely with a DC talk line: "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle."
Thirdly all the fuss occupies a very privileged corner of the world. Men have more bark than bite.
This woman may be quite angry at the idea of in God we Trust on her money, but she's probably not going to do anything about it beyond this youtube video. She more likely prefers the comfort of her lattes and internet forums than the devotion and hard work needed to try and remove it.
You may be quite angry that a woman was stoned to death by the Taliban, that some cult leader molested a little girl, but what are you going to do about it? "We're going to tell people we're angry, and tell the Taliban shame on you". And when you realize that most of these things you want to change, particularly the worst forms of it, give you the middle finger for all your effort, then what?
This brings into question what does this look like in the future? How does it turn? If religion has receded in certain part of the world it has done so organically, not by any sort of active effort. The beliefs of many prominent atheist of the past, is that religion would decline just like that. They would probably be a bit astonished to see the world as it exists today. Now we're looking at a semi-global movement to actively recede it, to create a world where there are less religious individuals, to see atheism on the rise through some active effort.
Little do they realize the formidable nature of the things they so strongly oppose, that they are the products of the basic irrationality of human life. if it disappears in one form, its just takes on another form. Sort of like changing dresses, but you're still the same person. Little do they realize that their most passionate goals are vain pursuits.
But if you look closely, it doesn't even seem like this matters to them. That aiming for these grand ambitions is rather a facade. You'd find very little thought, planning, strategy on how to take on the issues they attach themselves to. You're not going to find much in the writing of Dawkins and company that explore the nature of religion in relationship to the problems they paint, or how to go about curing the disease.
And for those that do genuinely seek to resolve these problems, violence is not an option for them, but what happens when violence is perceived as the only option for some, the ugly elements that can easily attach themselves to a group that has no real focal center, but just scattered individuals, only united by their anger?
Our atheist may be too be privileged to have to think of this question, and perhaps they continually will be.
And if that's the case, then I can't say your delusion is a bad thing. Surely, believers become the victims of name calling, and some atheist continue to believe that they belong to some superior group, of the most gifted thinkers, and the truly rational, while every one else is seen as deluded by their myths.
But yet for this price, you get your striving community, a sense of voice, and identity, you make some friends, don't feel so isolated anymore. You get t-shirts, and bumper stickers, and pins, and books that write of how privileged and lucky you are; professors that call you "Brights". Even our marginal loser, gets to feel that he's in the league of a Carl Sagan.
Even I get to partake at your table. You may not like me here, but I sure like your soup.
Perhaps the price is worth it.
You ask me if I find your delusion to be a bad thing? And I'm on the fence here. The way things are now, I couldn't say they are. I lean on the side of saying they're perhaps a good thing for our lonely atheist in a meaningless world. But often I'm apathetic-- to each his own.
If I lean on the side of 'bad', the worry is about what it all becomes? How is all this going to look tomorrow.
by 
)?
