The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

RichardPrins · #1 by **RichardPrins** » Mar 20, 2010 4:00 am

Michael De Dora Jr. wrote:

Last week, in my first blog post , I wrote that there are major problems with how Americans view the relationship between politics, morality, religion and belief. In that piece, I focused mostly on the shortcomings of the typical liberal response to the relationship between religion and politics, barely touching on other secularist responses. This week, I'd like to outline the problems I have with one well-known response to the typical liberal camp: the radical atheists. While these atheists have aired many quality arguments against religious belief, and pushed dialogue on religion and its relation to politics, there are seemingly too many shortcomings of forming an approach on atheism.

Starting in 2005, American public was hit with a fresh wave of secular thought openly criticizing organized religion and religious faith. It started with Sam Harris’ 2004 book “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.” Soon after, Richard Dawkins (“The God Delusion,” 2006) and Christopher Hitchens (“God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” 2007) published books similarly critical of religion (1). Moreover, in 2006, Harris penned a rejoinder to his book, “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Religious critique of this kind wasn’t contained to bookshelves, either -- the Web exploded with blogs, podcasts, and self-made YouTube videos. Perhaps the most prominent Web-based atheist is the biologist P.Z. Myers, who runs one of the most-read atheist blogs, Pharyngula.

Many have called these authors and their followers the “New Atheists” -- practitioners of a form of atheism that is outspoken and brash in its condemnation of religion and religious belief. These atheists were not content to disbelieve and go on with their lives; they also wanted to let religious beliefs know they were wrong (though it should be added it is not like these men broke into homes; they sold books and wrote blog posts). But this new, bold assault on religion did bring many secularists out of the woodwork – and what made wave perhaps unique was a call by men such as Dawkins and Myers to organize around atheism and sharp rhetoric.

There has been, as one would expect, bountiful criticism of the arguments found in the “New Atheist” books, and the philosophical merits of atheism. Aside from that, it is generally agreed that some good did come from these books in that they pushed important issues to the public. However, an issue that received less focus was a more strategic one: the fact that many atheists define their entire lives around unbelief and critique of theism. Oddly enough, Sam Harris picked up on this observation. In 2007, Harris gave a talk called “The Problem With Atheism” at the Atheist Alliance International conference, describing some tactical problems with formulating a movement based on atheism (4).

Firsts: what is atheism? By definition, atheism means the absence of belief in theism or God. Atheism doesn’t imply whether a person believes “God definitely doesn’t exist” or whether he or she is a bit more lenient on the matter. Atheism does not tell us how much one cares about religion; it does not tell us if one is friendly to religion, or hates it. It does not tell us if one is absolutely unreasonable in his or her other beliefs generally. There are terrible atheists. Atheism is not encompassing in any other sense than, because it is so broad, many people might be atheists that do not realize it. As Robert Ingersoll once said, even if God does not exist, humans still have their work cut out for them. Atheism isn’t enough. This is the first argument against atheism. It is not a philosophy or a worldview, it is a lack of a specific religious belief, and that isn’t enough to carry us forward in any meaningful way. (...)

Loren Michael · #2 by **Loren Michael** » Mar 20, 2010 8:08 am

I believe I agree with all of that.

amyonyango · #3 by **amyonyango** » Mar 20, 2010 8:21 am

Isn't it great that people are as varied as they come and just because a group of people define themselves "ATHEIST" you cannot pin other traits on them individually.

Isn't it natural for people who's only commonality is their lack of belief to be a hugely varied bunch, some with stronger feelings towards the atheist movement than others?

I like the variety and opportunity for different atheists to express their views openly, adopting whatever tactic they feel suits them in the face of cretinous religio-babble.

Or would people rather there was a set of rules for atheists to follow - our own moral code? It's OK to have no belief, but this is how you should behave in the company of religious folk...?

Really? Isn't this control of thought and behaviour the very thing that atheists detest about organised religion?

I disagree with the OP. Quite strongly.

EDIT: To respond to the final paragraph: "Atheism" simply refers to ones lack of belief in god and of course this is not a "world view". But the principles of atheism - free thought, rationalism and proof of statement definaltely can be used to provide a world view, and a damned good one at that!

Loren Michael · #4 by **Loren Michael** » Mar 20, 2010 8:38 am

amyonyango wrote:EDIT: To respond to the final paragraph: "Atheism" simply refers to ones lack of belief in god and of course this is not a "world view". But the principles of atheism - free thought, rationalism and proof of statement definaltely can be used to provide a world view, and a damned good one at that!

Tell that to atheists like the Khmer Rouge. I don't think they got the "principles of atheism" memo.

Cue a No True Scotsman response. I would also like to note that the predictable unhinged response to my first and second sentences in this post is a fine example of the problems of using uncompassionate rhetoric (no matter how true). Perhaps the meta-nature of my third through fifth sentences will mitigate it, but I somewhat hope to create a teachable moment.

amyonyango · #5 by **amyonyango** » Mar 20, 2010 9:00 am

What's the Khmer Rouge got to do with anything? There's nothing rational about genocide - even if the purpotrators of such a regime can justify it in their own minds it doesn't make it right. I wasn't aware the Khmer Rouge were motivated by atheism - I thought they were motivated by greed, control and their own delusional ideas of self importance.

In fact, are there any examples of atheism leading to killing and torture? I mean a direct link, as in "they hated the idea of god so much they killed someone because they were a believer"?

Loren Michael · #6 by **Loren Michael** » Mar 20, 2010 9:05 am

amyonyango wrote:What's the Khmer Rouge got to do with anything? There's nothing rational about genocide - even if the purpotrators of such a regime can justify it in their own minds it doesn't make it right.

The Khmer Rouge were a bunch of atheists. You say that there's some "principles of atheism". One presumes that atheists have a chance to peruse these principles so they might better understand atheism. Apparently the Khmer Rouge never received this memo. Same as Mao and Stalin.

amyonyango · #7 by **amyonyango** » Mar 20, 2010 9:14 am

Loren Michael wrote:
amyonyango wrote:What's the Khmer Rouge got to do with anything? There's nothing rational about genocide - even if the purpotrators of such a regime can justify it in their own minds it doesn't make it right.

The Khmer Rouge were a bunch of atheists. You say that there's some "principles of atheism". One presumes that atheists have a chance to peruse these principles so they might better understand atheism. Apparently the Khmer Rouge never received this memo. Same as Mao and Stalin.

Were they tho? I can't find any reference to them being distinctly atheist. Their reigime may not have had a religious emphasis but was what they did motivated by a lack of belief?

There are "good" atheists and "bad" atheists but my point is that the lack of belief is not a motivating factor for "bad" behaviour. If someone kills someone and it is discovered they are christian, that doesn't make their religion the motivating factor for the crime.

In the case of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot et al must have had extreme desires for control that far outweighed any rational thoughts to the contrary. Whether or not they were atheist is simply a side note. If they were atheist it's probably because they were too busy planning how best to perform acts of genocide to really give the issue of religion too much thought.

Loren Michael · #8 by **Loren Michael** » Mar 20, 2010 9:25 am

amyonyango wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
amyonyango wrote:What's the Khmer Rouge got to do with anything? There's nothing rational about genocide - even if the purpotrators of such a regime can justify it in their own minds it doesn't make it right.

The Khmer Rouge were a bunch of atheists. You say that there's some "principles of atheism". One presumes that atheists have a chance to peruse these principles so they might better understand atheism. Apparently the Khmer Rouge never received this memo. Same as Mao and Stalin.

Were they tho? I can't find any reference to them being distinctly atheist. Their reigime may not have had a religious emphasis but was what they did motivated by a lack of belief?

Yes, they were atheists. They were even atheistic atheists, insofar as they didn't believe in gods, at least in doctrine. They were essentially extreme Maoists. Their motivations are irrelevant to this point; in the context of this thread I don't care about them and neither should you, and I wonder why you even bring them up. My greater point is that there is no "principles of atheism" beyond a lack of belief in gods. Which makes it a retarded thing to craft an ideology around. Which is one of the points of the article this thread is about.

Shaker · #9 by **Shaker** » Mar 20, 2010 9:33 am

My greater point is that there is no "principles of atheism" beyond a lack of belief in gods. Which makes it a retarded thing to craft an ideology around. Which is one of the points of the article this thread is about.

Firstly, who's "crafting an ideology"?

Secondly, and more importantly, I thought it was a feature of the approach of all the so-called "New Atheists" that it isn't so much atheism per se that they want to encourage but - Dawkins is especially hot on this - reason: critical thinking, scepticism, evidence-based thought, rationalism, evidentialism. Atheism is a logical consequence of those things and comes at the end of the process, not the beginning.

Loren Michael · **#10** by **Loren Michael** » Mar 20, 2010 9:53 am

Shaker wrote:
My greater point is that there is no "principles of atheism" beyond a lack of belief in gods. Which makes it a retarded thing to craft an ideology around. Which is one of the points of the article this thread is about.

Firstly, who's "crafting an ideology"?

Secondly, and more importantly, I thought it was a feature of the approach of all the so-called "New Atheists" that it isn't so much atheism per se that they want to encourage but - Dawkins is especially hot on this - reason: critical thinking, scepticism, evidence-based thought, rationalism, evidentialism.

People here seem to certainly caught up in atheism for the sake of atheism, concocting novel definitions of the term, attributing sets of principles to atheism that have nothing to do with disbelief in gods, even going so far as to so broaden the definition of "theism" as to practically make it useless, in effect preforming the backdoor equivalent of redefining atheism itself. I concede that I'm only dealing in anecdotes here, but... /shrug. Seems like crafting an ideology to me.

I agree with your second bit, to a limited degree. I haven't read The God Delusion, but I understand it gets a little caught up in "atheism" when it really doesn't need to, if it's aimed at something broader than mere atheism. For that matter, the title is kind of off, for the same reason. I like Sam Harris' book, in part because it tackles religion broadly, and ties it together with nonreason in general quite nicely. I also came to a similar realization to his that he talks about in his "The Problem With Atheism" speech. I think the record is spotty on this in general, at the level of so-called "leaders" of the "movement", and at the level of people like you and me.

nunnington · **#11** by **nunnington** » Mar 20, 2010 10:06 am

I also think people often get confused between atheism and anti-theism. Some atheists (but not all) are anti-theists, and some anti-theists (but not all) have targeted religion ferociously.

I think all the arguments about communism often fall into this confusion. Surely the Bolsheviks, for example, were ferocious and violent anti-theists, but of course, many atheists are not at all like that, and many presumably are simply indifferent to religion.

aspire1670 · **#12** by **aspire1670** » Mar 20, 2010 10:20 am

Loren Michael wrote:

TheKhmer Rouge Inquisition were a bunch of atheists theists. You say that there's some "principles of atheism"theism. One presumes that atheiststheists have a chance to peruse these principles so they might better understand atheism theism. Apparently the Khmer Rouge Inquisition never received this memo. Same as Mao and Stalin the numberless theists that slaughtered their opponents in the names of their various imaganary gods.

FIFY

P.S. Any evidence to substantiate your particular flavour of god?

Loren Michael · **#13** by **Loren Michael** » Mar 20, 2010 10:21 am

I think the Khmer Rouge and communism in general provide fine examples of a significant problem with an atheistic approach to the world. This would fall under the "first argument" of the article the first post refers to, and also an example of the broader problems that atheism fails to address, which is the "second argument".

Loren Michael · **#14** by **Loren Michael** » Mar 20, 2010 10:23 am

aspire1670 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:

TheKhmer Rouge Inquisition were a bunch of atheists theists. You say that there's some "principles of atheism"theism. One presumes that atheiststheists have a chance to peruse these principles so they might better understand atheism theism. Apparently the Khmer Rouge Inquisition never received this memo. Same as Mao and Stalin the numberless theists that slaughtered their opponents in the names of their various imaganary gods.

FIFY

P.S. Any evidence to substantiate your particular flavour of god?

Oh, I forgot about you. I'm going to have to update my earlier post now.

amyonyango · **#15** by **amyonyango** » Mar 20, 2010 11:34 am

Loren Michael wrote:I think the Khmer Rouge and communism in general provide fine examples of a significant problem with an atheistic approach to the world. This would fall under the "first argument" of the article the first post refers to, and also an example of the broader problems that atheism fails to address, which is the "second argument".

Who says communism is atheist?

Something that has no religious stance in not necessarily atheist. Religion, or lack of it, can be totally irrelevant in many instances. Where a reigime lacks a religious stance it does not mean that it has an atheist stance.

For me to say "I am atheist" I have thought hard about the meaning and implications of such a declaration. I don't think communist regimes really care about whether or not they have a religious or atheist stance. To come to a logical, rational and free decision to reject religion is, in my opinion, the only way to be a real "atheist". Any violent reigeme pushing ideologies with force is neither logical nor rational.

Shaker · **#16** by **Shaker** » Mar 20, 2010 12:27 pm

Who says communism is atheist?

Quite. Communism as we've seen it practised so far in the world over the past century or so has certainly been atheistic and in some cases violently anti-theistic: this stems more from Lenin than from Marx (though the latter was no friend to religion, to be sure). But there have been Christian communists, and some groups have tried to rejig the Gospels to make Jesus a sort of proto-communist himself.

Alan B · **#17** by **Alan B** » Mar 20, 2010 12:46 pm

amyonyango wrote: Any violent reigeme pushing ideologies with force is neither logical nor rational.

And, I might add, begin to take on all the appearances and attributes of a totalitarian religion.
If you examine the methods used to exert control and manipulation used by the communist and fascist regimes and the major theist religions, there is not much to choose between them. It's only a matter of degree.
There has never been a regime that has declared that it will control and manipulate its peoples according to the 'doctrine' and 'philosophy' of atheism. Totalitarian regimes may adopt any system of rule and may even outlaw religion and any associated belief in a god, but that is only to consolidate their own power-base. Nothing to do with atheism per se.
To argue that a totalitarian regime that rejects religion and god and is therefore 'atheist', and that this 'atheism' is the defining system of rule to apply subjugation to the peoples is specious and manipulative.

I don't think the theists' posts on this thread have indicated any understanding of non-belief and the associated complete absence of 'doctrine' and 'philosophy'. My non-belief in the existence of a god or gods knows no doctrine or dogma and does not require me to attend any 'quasi-religious' meetings.

Paul G · **#18** by **Paul G** » Mar 20, 2010 3:07 pm

Shaker wrote:
Who says communism is atheist?

Quite. Communism as we've seen it practised so far in the world over the past century or so has certainly been atheistic and in some cases violently anti-theistic: this stems more from Lenin than from Marx (though the latter was no friend to religion, to be sure). But there have been Christian communists, and some groups have tried to rejig the Gospels to make Jesus a sort of proto-communist himself.

Well said.

A question to anyone who makes a strong link between atheism and communism. Does this imply that with a belief in God, Stalin, Mao etc would not have been genocidal, authoritarian lunatics?

aspire1670 · **#19** by **aspire1670** » Mar 20, 2010 3:09 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
aspire1670 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:

TheKhmer Rouge Inquisition were a bunch of atheists theists. You say that there's some "principles of atheism"theism. One presumes that atheiststheists have a chance to peruse these principles so they might better understand atheism theism. Apparently the Khmer Rouge Inquisition never received this memo. Same as Mao and Stalin the numberless theists that slaughtered their opponents in the names of their various imaganary gods.

FIFY

P.S. Any evidence to substantiate your particular flavour of god?

Oh, I forgot about you. I'm going to have to update my earlier post now.

How on earth is it possible to update total bollocks, Loren, unless your planning to do more of this:

You really shouldn't use this forum to recycle your garbage, there are plenty of theist sites out there on the web who would positively revel in your contributions.

hackenslash · **#20** by **hackenslash** » Mar 20, 2010 3:22 pm

I actually substantially agree with most of the specific points in the article, but underlying it all is a fallacious idea, namely that atheism is an 'approach' or a 'strategy' for anything. For me, I am not motivated by my atheism, but my love for what is actually true, and the defence of what is actually true from the ridiculous attacks against it by the credulous. My atheism is a symptom of this, not the cause of it, nor a strategy in and of itself. Reason is the strategy, and the defeating of magical thinking is the aim.

The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Re: The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World

Who is online