A new study by University of Minnesota sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann confirms the longstanding research finding that public hostility towards atheists is considerably more widespread than that towards any other ethnic or religious minority group. Edgell, et al. conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups and found that prejudice against atheists topped the scale. For example, almost 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society." Note that the question did not ask whether the respondent disagrees with atheists on some issues (which would be a perfectly understandable and noninvidious view), but asks if they are a group that does not at all share his views.
The figures for other groups on this question (with rounding to whole numbers):
Muslims: 26%
Homosexuals: 23
Conservative Christians: 14
Recent immigrants: 13
Jews: 8
Scholars have long recognized that a key indication of tolerance for a group is willingness to accept intermarriage with its members. Here too, intolerance for atheists leads the pack. Below are the percentages of respondents stating, with respect to particular groups, that "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group" (rounded to whole numbers):
Atheists: 48
Muslims: 34
African-Americans: 27
Asian-Americans: 19
Hispanic-Americans: 19
Jews: 12
Conservative Christians: 7
Obviously, some people simply oppose intermarriage with any religious group other than their own. However, this cannot explain the high opposition to intermarriage with atheists, as it is clear from the results that numerous non-Jewish and non-Muslim respondents are willing to accept intermarriage with Jews and in some cases with Muslims, but unwilling to do so in the case of atheists. A particularly interesting point is that hostility towards Muslims on both this question and the previous one lags well behind hostility to atheists - even despite 9/11.
The Minnesota results are consistent with other survey evidence going back for years. For example, atheists consistently score at the bottom when respondents are asked whether they would be willing support a "qualified" presidential candidate nominated by their party who was a member of a particular group (even homosexual candidates, the next most unpopular, are less widely rejected).
Other, more qualitative, indicators of prejudice also point to widespread hostility towards atheists, even as compared to other relatively unpopular groups. For example, despite considerable antagonism towards homosexuals in many quarters, there have been quite a few openly gay members of Congress, including even some conservative Republican ones such as Rep. Jim Kolbe and Rep. Steve Gunderson. By contrast, there has never been, to my knowledge, even one openly unbelieving congressman or senator, despite the fact that atheists and agnostics are roughly 3% of the population (about the same as the percentage of gays, and a bit larger than the percentage of Jews). Nor has there ever been an openly atheist president, vice-president, governor, Supreme Court Justice, or member of the Cabinet. While I certainly would not argue that justice requires proportional representation of atheists in these bodies, the absence of even one open atheist in high political office is still striking.
Similarly, organizations such as the Boy Scouts have taken considerable flak for their refusal to accept gays. But the Scouts have gotten far less criticism for their equally categorical rejection of atheists. As in the case of intermarriage, I have no principled objection to groups limited to people who share their particular religion (e.g. - an all-Catholic or all-Jewish group). The Scouts however, accept members of any and all religions - no matter how odious their beliefs on various issues may be - but reject all avowed atheists and agnostics. I am not arguing that the government should force the Boy Scouts and other similar groups to accept atheists. In my view, it shouldn't. However, that should not stop us from criticizing their bigotry.
A common argument for various forms of discrimination against atheists is the claim that atheism is a belief system, not an involuntary identity like race or homosexuality. It is indeed sometimes appropriate to show hostility towards people because of their reprehensible beliefs (e.g. - in the case of KKK members). But we generally reject such categorical hostility towards members of most religious groups such as Jews or Catholics. The same principle should apply to atheists - especially since atheism, unlike some religions, is actually compatible with a very wide range of views on moral and political issues. For example, there have been prominent socialist atheists (e.g. - Marx), prominent libertarian ones (e.g. - Ayn Rand), and even notable conservative atheists such as Whittaker Chambers. The only common belief that all atheists share is denial of the existence of God, and that should not be a sufficient reason to hate them or discriminate against them as a group.
To avoid misunderstanding, I am NOT suggesting that the position of atheists in the United States is worse than that of homosexuals or African-Americans. In fact, I believe the opposite is actually closer to the truth. However, the data do strongly suggest that hostility towards atheists is more widespread (even if perhaps less intensely felt) and considered more socially acceptable than racism and homophobia. Even if the survey results are biased by the unwillingness of some respondents to admit racist views, it is still noteworthy that fewer people seem to have such inhibitions about admitting hostility towards atheists.
NOTE: the link to the Minnesota data above is to a summary on an atheist website because this is the most thorough description I was able to find on the internet. However, the study itself was not conducted or funded by any atheist organization.
CORRECTION: After checking, it turns out that I was wrong to say that Whittaker Chambers was an atheist even after becoming a conservative. However, I stand by the broader point that atheism is compatible with a wide range of moral and political views, including conservatism. Thus, hostility towards atheism on the grounds of its alleged political and/or moral implications is unjustified.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Appeals to Religious Hostility from the Texas Republican Party:
- Mixing Politics and Atheism:
- Holocaust-Denying Atheist Candidate for Alabama Attorney General Gets 43.5% of the Primary Vote:...
- Hostility to Atheism II - Are Atheists Themselves Responsible for the Prejudice Against Them?:
- Hostility to Atheism - The Last Socially Acceptable Prejudice?
- Murders of Atheists Because of Their Beliefs About Religion:...
- Hostility to Atheists:
- Leading Atheist Legal Activist and Candidate for Alabama Attorney General
- Discrimination Against Atheists:
I think that most of the hostility towards athiests is in fact due to a perceived hostility of athiests towards believers. Athiests that I have known, can be extremely hostile towards believers. Though this is anncedotal, it might explain some of these figures.
Overall I feel that most Christians today are taught tolerance as part of the basic relegious belief. Athiests on the other hand are more strident and intolerant. The attacks by Athiests and the ACLU on Christmass displays, only fuels the intolerance towards them.
In short it is hard to be tolerant towards someone who is intolerant of you. Which of course begets a feed back loop.
I don't see this changing any time soon, nor should it. If you want to prove prejudice, show me data on physical assaults, employment discrimination, and so on. Don't show me decisions that are entirely justifiable on their own merits.
I'm told R. Rorty makes such a case; I just have yet to read it.
See The Farmers' Cabinet.; 1844-04-11; Vol: 42; Iss: 34; Page: [2].
It may be true that most Christians are taught tolerance towards other religions. But whether they are taught tolerance towards atheists is a different matter.
Finally, the lawsuits against Christmas displays, whatever their legal merits, are not attacks on religion but merely on government endorsement thereof. And the ACLU is not an atheist organization. Many of its members, probably the majority, are religious believers, albeit liberal ones.
Second, I do want to wonder if most people really see the "absence of belief" as "another form of belief." I think one can rationally say, "I believe in God. While I choose to pray to God in the form of X, I understand that other people pray to God in the form of Y or Z. That's okay. But not praying to God at all, that's a different story."
The first sentence is how I view my own religion. While I do not agree with the next two sentences, I don't think it's that much of a logical leap. While this doesn't condone anti-athiest prejudice, it may explain why anti-athiest prejudice is more condoned than other forms - because, to some degree, it looks on its face less like a religious argument and more like a political argument. This might explain/contribute to the explanation as to why athiests have gotten an unfair stereotype as being hostile to religion, as well.
It is a matter of marketing. Though the ACLU is not an atheist organization and the lawsuits were based on first amendment rights, it is the perception that actually matters. What people perceive is that their relegion is being attacked, and not that the first amendment is being enforced.
Yes hatred and intolerance towards Atheists did go back decades (well actually centuries). However, in recent decades it seems most of the population has adopted a, "live and let live," philosophy. Yet when the atheists themselves are perceived as not following this philosopy, you get hostility.
True as that may be, these suits are perceived largely as attacks on venerable and innocuous accomodations of majority perspectives - an already unpopular minority attempting to silence expression that the majority holds dear.
Bear in mind that people don't get their views on atheism from reading McCreary County. They get it from Bill O'Reilly, the most popular cable news host today, if not ever. Many people who live between the coasts don't think they ever met an atheist. They are informed solely by O'Reilly, et. al.
The Boy Scouts rejects atheists, I think, because atheists tend to believe either 1) that each person controls his or her own destiny, which doesn't even work for the alleged Howard Roarks and John Galts of this world, much less the rest of us, or 2) each person has no control over his or her own destiny, which means that we are all just "dust in the wind." Both philosophies are destructive to any society, much less ours.
And that, in a nutshell, is how I explained to a scout who once asked me why the Boy Scouts rejects atheists.
Now it may be, that many of their laws and decrees are ones that in an ordered society work just fine. The dictum "do what puts me at the least risk for greatest reward" will generally in a society with just laws and penalties work out just fine. But in a society without such foundation the athiest is far more free in a multitude of activities. The athiest is fundamentally unpredictable, he might be a reasonable decent young man one moment, but then the bases by which he calculates may change, an opportunity worth taking may arise and he would do it. If, for example, adultery is not objectively wrong by some higher standard than how can we ever be sure that the athiest would follow a convention as such if he knew he could never be caught. We can't.
The problem is, for athiests, is that 90% of the world knows how they would think, if they were athiests, and they rightly fear someone who would so willingly declare themselves as such.
I don't see how this is different from an all-Jewish dating group excluding Catholics even if most of the Jews in the group are non-observant and don't even mind eating pork. Consistency isn't the issue but rather the right of the group to self-define.
If this is a definiton of intolerance, then we have long past fallen down the slippery slope and it is an indication that social conservatives should have been more resistant in the past to tolerance of atheists, divorcees and homosexuals. If being tolerant, means being damned as intolerant for holding to one's views then fine, let there be prejudice and intolerance!
I think it can explain more than the study or the post is allowing. If I marry someone that believes in God, but not the same religious tenets, that's overcoming a difference of degree. Marrying someone that does not believe in God is a difference in kind.
There is a lot less of a hurdle to overcome in convincing someone of the correctness of your particular religion's doctrines, than convincing them of the underlying assumption that God indeed exists.
Did they also include less mainstream religious beliefs? Like wiccans or something?
Not true. There are many atheist philosophies that provide perfectly acceptable codes of morals. Objectivism, for instance, can be justified entirely without theistic reference.
Moreover, in practice, religious people prove no better than their atheist counterparts. People, in the end, are flawed regardless of what theistic adherence, or lack thereof, they espouse.
BTW, athiesm is not a religion. I don't collect stamps either but that doesn't mean that not stamp collecting is my hobby.
But perhaps more to the point, why doesn't this survey take into account people who simply don't care? I neither know, nor care, if there is or isn't a God. There are atheists who are table-pounding disbelievers in God, and then there are the rest of us who simply have neither the time, nor the energy, for the intensity of religious belief in this country. We ought to be counted too.
There is quite a large body of ethical philosophy that is entirely secular. I would recommend acquainting yourself with it. You might learn something.
"Because my religious leader said so" is probably the worst reason to do anything.
I think that most prejudice against atheism is caused by the association of atheism with communism, so it is not an entirely irrational or unwarranted prejudice, though it is wrong.
Trying to divine what "atheists believe" is absurd. The definion of atheism (a=without, theos=god) is based only on what they DONT believe in, not what they do believe in... I think you are mixing up atheists with nihlists or something...
In fact, I think many atheists are more sensitive to the need for justice than those who are theistic. I do not mean this as any kind of attack on believers -- consider this: A religious person has adopted some form of belief concerning what happens to us after we die, and almost invariably what occurs is a kind of accounting over our life. If we have led a good life, we are rewarded in some way (either with Heaven or a better next-life, etc.); if we have led a bad life, we are punished (Hell, or we come back as a lesser life form, etc.). So if justice is not meted out during our lives, don't worry -- the uncaught murderer is going to Hell anyway.
The atheist has no such comfort. Stalin died peacefully in his sleep after having ordered the deaths of millions of people, and that's all he'll ever get. The atheist sees no punishment in his afterlife. We have forever lost the ability to make him accountable for his actions. And that makes the atheist feel that if we don't nab the murderer, there truly will be no justice. Hence, the justice we have here is all we'll ever have, so we'd better do our best to apply it while we can.
To an Athiest (or even an agnostic like myself), the circularity of drawing moral authority from religion is overwhelming.
Someone explain this argument to me, again. And I don't want the short conclusory form. I want a link that explains how religious persons, in the absence of any proof of God, have managed to affirmatively prove a first source for morality.
It's worth pointing out that while almost all religions have evangelical aspects to them (since religions that succeed must grow, and growth is achieved through procreation and conversion), unbelief, by itself, does not. To restate the obvious, atheism isn't a religious belief system, it's the lack of one.
Obviously there are loud and strident atheists, but a big majority of us don't feel a need to discuss it unless it comes up.
On Morals: Regardless of where you think your and my system of morals comes from, the reality is that they are a result of one's upbringing and society. In the real world, atheists behave largely the same way as Christians do. As an atheist, I have no trouble living by the policy of "do unto others as you would have done to yourself." I don't live this way because of any higher authority (though I do make every effort to obey the law), but because I feel that it is the right way to live one's life and be a good member of society.
Christians are no different. People today do not live with the moral systems presented in the bible, save for a few passages that are bandied about as so many others are ignored. Rather, the rules of modern society (both written and unwritten) are what govern their lives.
What's more, countless numbers of supposedly God-fearing Christians commit (sometimes unspeakable) crimes. Be it the Catholic child-raping priests or the ruthless and oft-times illegal business practices of Pat Robertson and many other powerful religious politicians, or anything else, being a Christian makes you no more or less inherently trustworthy than anyone else.
This post is getting long. I'll answer other things that need answering in further posts today.
The source of morality for an atheist can and should be logic, reason, and facts.
Religion is based of course on faith and belief. No religion can be supported with facts and evidence. It is supposition. If any religion could be proven, well then we could unite all people under the new truth and end all religious strife in the world forever. As it is, all we know for sure is that if any one of the competing religions is actually correct, then all the rest are wrong.
Intelligent persons with deep scientific knowledge may find it impossible to accept the proposition that the scriptures are the infallible word of the creator of the universe and that there is an invisible puppet master in the clouds directing events on earth, precisely because they are thoughtful and rational. It is reckless and wrong to categorize all these people as immoral and worthy of disdain.
Atheists are not a homogeneous group. Like any other group, there are atheists that are good neighbors and citizens, and some who are not. The most outrageous, outspoken atheists seek the spotlight and get the press coverage, while intelligent thoughtful scientists and engineers who are atheists avoid controversy.
The study seems to show that those with religious beliefs are quite intolerant of the alternate viewpoint. It would be interesting to poll atheists and measure their level of tolerance for members of the various religious groups.
"Athiests that I have known, can be extremely hostile towards believers."
"I still have yet to hear a compelling explanation of the source of morality for atheists who, presumably, live in the absence of the Paulian fidelity to a fact. "
"perhaps the two alternative results of atheism aren't necessarily destructive to society. They are, in my experience, almost certainly destructive to young men who follow them."
"A publicly declared athiest is one who has declared that they are for all intent and purpose not bound by any type of higher law. Thus, there can be no rational purpose except the maximization of personal well-being, in whatever way that individual defines it. There is nothing to order this individual except their own laws and decrees."
Now let's have some fun: replace Atheism with Judaism or Hinduism!
"Jews that I have known, can be extremely hostile towards Christians."
"I still have yet to hear a compelling explanation of the source of morality for Hindus who, presumably, live in the absence of the Paulian fidelity to a fact. "
"perhaps the two alternative results of Judaism aren't necessarily destructive to society. They are, in my experience, almost certainly destructive to young men who follow them."
"A publicly declared Hindu is one who has declared that they are for all intent and purpose not bound by any type of monotheistic higher law. Thus, there can be no rational purpose except the maximization of personal well-being, in whatever way that individual defines it. There is nothing to order this individual except their own laws and decrees."
Aren't those statements overly broad, based on limited personal experience, discriminatory, when applied to Jews and Hindus? Why is this not also so for atheists?
I agree with the statement above from "uh clem" regarding this. My atheism is not a secret or a shame, but I don't tend to just bring it up in conversations, either.
--Mark, an atheist married to a Catholic and doing just fine morally and ethically, thank you.
Natural selection doesn't justify anything. The same evolutionary process that moves forward by inadvertently creating a dog-eat-dog order, is the same process that gave us minds capable of setting our baser and more selfish needs aside, of thinking in moral terms, of surviving as a society and not as individuals. A belief that evolution got us here does not compel or necessarily connot the belief that chelovek cheloveku volk, (rus - man is wolf to his fellow man).
The study, as is usual in these studies trying to find yet another set of victims, insists that any feelings short of postive admiration are evidence of bigotry. Ho hum.
My suggestion is that atheists who have a problem just do as conservative students at liberal universities are advised to do, and suck it up. After all, atheists are crutch-free and that must mean they're stronger than practically anybody else. Who better to suck it up and march on?
I can't believe the breathlessness at which some people dismiss atheists based on incorrect information. This just proves a larger point: Most discrimination, hatred, prejudice and so on is based on lies, ignorance or falacious beliefs. If people have a dim view towards ANY grouping of people, it's probably because they know next to nothing about that group. Worse, they are likely told what to think about the group by ignorent men.
This thread is rich in irony, as so many of the posters are proving the point they purport to refute.
I do not know how theists in themselves behave, but I know what they themselves profess to attempt to achieve as far as a moral law.
With athiest I know how they behave at the moment, but I do not know what they profess to attempt to achieve as far as a moral law for themselves. There is no way to know except from the individual athiest, the moral law that individual athiest himself is ordering his or her life by. It makes a systemic prejudice against athiests rational. Prove to me your moral bases are reasonable rational, and relatively immutable, and we'll go from there.
<
You just need to substitute "worldview" for "religion". This actually makes sense--there's nothing, for the seriously religious, that more strongly informs their worldview than their religion.
Err. I think you might be searching for quite a while, since I think you'll find many/most/all religious believers have "proof" in the form of having had a religious experience.
Other than that, you might try Thomas Aquinas.
The classic Atheist attack is perceived as: "How can you be so stupid and superstitious enough to believe in God."
Believers therefore feel that they have had their intelligence, rationality (sanity), and basic belief system attacked all at once. This is bound to generate atipathy.
It is interesting that Agnostics are not mentioned. This is another group which is discriminated against. My old university discriminated against them as general policy. What is more threatening someone who who says, "there is no God(s)" or "there may or may not be God(s), I just don't know."
My suggestion is that atheists who have a problem just do as conservative students at liberal universities are advised to do, and suck it up. After all, atheists are crutch-free and that must mean they're stronger than practically anybody else. Who better to suck it up and march on?
Good advice. And I think that's what most of us do, actually.
That said, it would be nice to have a few people in elected office who are equally crutch-free and clear headed. (Actually, I think we do, they just know enough to keep their mouths shut)
Think carefully about racial prison demographics before you answer.
"have yet to hear a compelling explanation of the source of morality" (Tennesseean]? Really? Including Socrates, Plato and Aristotle? No, the Greeks and Romans did not have personal Gods who regulated their consciences; in fact ethical behavior would have been, to act as little as possible like their pantheon of rascals. See also, the Gods of Valhalla.
This atheist's viewpoint is that the monotheistic religions are based on ridiculous fables; and that, in fact, monotheism is the most destructive force ever unleashed on the human race. See Iraq. See the Thirty Years War. See the horrifying events of the Indian partition.
However, the antics of the ACLU are intended to enforce compulsory atheism in the public sphere, and I find the ACLU utterly contemptible. It should be obvious that (except to our highest judges) that the First Amendment means just about the opposite of their interpretation - mandating the freedom of religion.
I see that, at least among the devotees of this website, that I shouldn't have many friends. On the contrary: I have all the friends I can use, and am widely believed to lead a "moral and ethical" life.
I personally have friends and associates about whom I could say that their vision of what Amercian society should be and mine have very little in common, and I'm not sure I'd want one of my children to marry them--but we remain friends and associates, and I'm certainly not hostile towards them.
Beyond that, polls such as these have a fundamental flaw in that they ask the respondant to opine regarding an abstract representative of a class, typified (in their minds) by publicly visible figures. So when they hear "atheist", they likely don't think of their doctor or their grocery clerk or the kid who delivers their paper [hey, I was an atheist from age 10 to age 13], they think of the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair and/or Michael Newdow (of the 'Pledge of Allegience' lawsuit) and other such visible figures, all rolled up into one. And because those figures are the visible, public ones, they are seen (consciously or not) as representing the "atheists as a group"--much as liberals see Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell as representing all Christians, or at least all conservative ones.
So, their answers are really more along the lines of "Does someone like Michael Newdow agree at all with my vision of American society, and would I want him to marry my daughter?" That's not public (collective) hostility towards a group; it's widespread individual dislike of one or more very visible representatives of that group.
Even with that, I think the reality is a bit more along the lines of the devil Wormwood's disgust with the English people during WWII as described in _The Screwtape Letters_: "They are creatures of that miserable sort who loudly proclaim that torture is too good for their enemies and then give tea and cigarettes to the first wounded German pilot who turns up at the back door."
I strongly suspect that if you took the 40%/48% of respondants who answered against atheists and sat them down for a few hours with a dozen or so actual atheists chosen from their neighborhood/community/workplace (so as to screen out other differentiating factors), then ask the same questions again, you would get profoundly lower values than the 40%/48% cited above. You'd also get a lot of surprised comments ("_She's_ an atheist? I never would have guessed.")
Beyond that, I think it's hard to talk about polls such as the ones above demonstrating "public hostility towards atheists" when there is a complete lack of corroborating evidence showing discrimination and hate crimes against atheists. As noted above, it's more like irritation towards a few public figures.
On a slighly different note: check out the wonderfully-named Godless Americans Political Action Committee (GAMPAC) at http://www.godlessamericans.org. I ran across them when they endorsed Kerry/Edwards in 2004. I almost sent them a contribution back then, not because I agree with them, but because their PAC name was such an honest and refreshing change from the fuzzy-but-meaningless names of most PACs. GOMPAC might be the best people to ask if they know of any openly atheist Congresspeople. ..bruce..
No, I can not exonerate religion from the same charge. Misinterpretation in religion is frequent and often destructive. The difference I suppose, is at least there is something to interpret, with the individual athiest I have to discover for myself what it is their interpretation of personal morality is. Now, once that's established that's fine, I have no problem with athiests personally, many are quite fine and decent, but as a systemic heuristic, one that establishes, don't trust initially, determine trustworthiness, etc...seems reasonable.
Now any rational person would do the same to the theist, except that they would probably trust that hey, I can expect that in the main, the protestant Christian, will probably live in a way that I would expect a protestant Christian too, base his or her life around a protestant Christian morality.
Do I think this is unfair? Not particularly so.
Joel, you might find this informative. (I did).
But is that because atheists are less likely to become criminals, or because people in prison often turn to religion as solace? I don't know the answer on this, and I would rather suspect that you don't know, either.
I really wish that I could say that hostility to atheists is because their morality is so much lower, but I haven't seen any sign of atheists being less moral (in any measure) than believers. (Nor have I seen any indication that they are any more moral, in spite of generally being much better educated.) Of course, a lot of people that claim to believe in God would be hard pressed to distinguish from atheists in their level of church attendance, piety, or promotion of their religion to their kids. For a lot of people in America, religion is more a default setting than a consciously affirmed position.
However: there is no question that the immorality of certain categories of atheists plays a role in provoking hostility towards them, especially in public office. The Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, and the Khmer Rouge were all fiercely and loudly atheistic societies, and even genocidal states like Nazi Germany gave clear indications that God was window dressing to fundamentally Social Darwinist beliefs. What the National Socialists of Germany did with a pre-World War I slogan is quite instructive. Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Gott! emphasized that Germany (only unified in 1870) was one nation, one people, with one God (because Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all worshipped the same God). The National Socialists replaced "Ein Gott" with "Ein Fuehrer." This was idolatry every bit as much as calling Mao Zedong "The Great Helmsman." (There are capitals there for a reason. See Nien Cheng's Life and Death in Shanghai for a discussion of how the Communist Party appropriated language associated with religion and God.)
I think Joel B. is naive if he expects protestant Christians to base their lives around a protestant Christian morality. I think they have a disproportionately high percentage of prison inmates. And then there's the issue of what a protestant Christian morality entails -- I don't see many giving the poor the shirts off their backs.
Most. Destructive. Force. Evar? Are we forgetting communism here? You know, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc?
Most atheists don't wear their beliefs on their sleeve. Our lack of religious beliefs isn't central to our lives. If someone asks me what my beliefs are, I'll probably tell him, but it's not something that is brought up often. Atheists who are more forward with their beliefs (and yes, some are quite rude in this regard- another thing atheists and theists can have in common) are running a risk of retaliation. An atheist who wears a shirt saying "there is no God" is much more likely to be assailed than a Christian who has a Mark 14:16 shirt. Similarly anti-religious bumper stickers are a great way to get one's car keyed or tires slashed. This is in a country where the freedom of one's speech is an enshrined right.
Yes, the atheistic world-view is inherently incompatible with that of say, a Christian, but so too is the case with different faiths that are not so universally reviled.
Please provide statistical backing for this. I know that Islam is one of the fast growing religions in prison.
You might see what organizations like World Vision and the Salavation Army are doing around the world, along with many other Christian relief organizations. Who do you think provides their funding?
I don't have updated figures, and Muslims may be disproportionately high.
I agree that many Christians are very charitably generous. I disagree that this is an across the board characteristic of Christians, so that you can reason (a) he is a protestant so therefore (b) he donates a great deal to charity. Which was the implication to which I responded.
"The percentage of atheists in prison is only around 5% of their population percentage" seems to imply the latter (accepting the post's claim that atheists are 3% of the population), but I doubt that's what you meant.
If you meant that only %5 of prison inmates are atheists, then that's disproportionately high.
Do you actually have any basis for these statistics anyway?
And that subset, being vocal, can easily create an impression that covers the less vocal set of everyday atheists who, as others have mentioned, don't make it obvious that they are such (because there's no reason to bring it up, and they're not obsessed with Being An Atheist).
I would be interested in an atheist's thoughts on the success of 12-step addiction programs, the only proven effective method of combatting addictions (especially now that A MILLION LITTLE PIECES has been proven a fraud.
The problem with atheism is that there are huge double standards. If we even note our existence, we are being rude and pushy. If we point out that some reason for belief is unconvincing, we are thought to be monsters. And yet, it's perfectly okay to run around telling us that we are all doomed to eternal suffering. People can tell us this to our faces, without provocation, and any reaction other than silence to this sociopathy... would be rude. But THEIR behavior isn't rude, oh no. THEIR implication that we are evil nasty people: that's not "rude." Oh, not at all.
The attitude of most believers towards atheists is that we should be neither seen nor heard while they attack and preach at and insult us as people. And you know what? Most of us atheists just sit and take it, and don't make trouble.
That's why people pointing out the "vocal" athiests as some bad thing doesn't really impress me much. By and large, most of us don't bother to get into it, or object to even clearly rude and rights-infringing assaults on us. We're not after a fight, we just want to live our everday lives, get on with our friends and families and causes and values that we have like everyone else. I doubt one belivier in a thousand could put up with what we happily put up nearly with everyday.
I'm also an Eagle Scout, and, now, and atheist. I have to say that the basic anti-atheist principle in scouting doesn't per se bother me as much as the anti-gay prejeduce. Scouting is supposed to be non-denominational, but of course that's not true in practice: there are plenty of denominations that accept homosexuality, but since Mormanism isn't one of them.... out the gays go!
However, scouting is a religious organization. If you're really an atheist, it makes about as much sense as joining a church. Of course... most churches wouldn't turn away an atheist, and the whole concept of turning anyone away (especially if you think you have a good message to spread!) is silly.
What I think gets left out is that, at root, we are all agnostics (a - without, gnosis - knowing): whether or not God(s) exist(s) is impossible to know in the way we know that water is wet or photosynthesis powers plants. Even the religious will tell you that proof denies faith, or that they take it on faith, most will admit that they do know know and that there is really no way to.
To me, if you can't know the answer the question is useless, so I ignore it, assume chance is more likely than some sort of child-like retributive skyfriend who desires my worship, and go on about my day.
Like Ilya Somin, I believe that we atheists have it much better--in spite of the widespread prejudice against us--than other minority groups. We are well represented in the Academy, and even more so in organizations like the National Academy of Sciences. (Unitarians and Jews are also sensationally well represented.) We do not run for office, or we keep in the closet if we do, it is true. But that kind of political prejudice against us has less dire consequences on our livelihood as individuals than the kind of discrimination that African Americans, Hispanics, gays, etc., endure.
On the other hand, it is no surprise that atheists (even those of us who have nothing but respect, admiration, and even aesthetic appreciation for some religious traditions) are perceived as being hostile to religion. When people of all religious backgrounds make you the putative enemy (standing in for ancient doctrinary rivals), it is very easy for you to feel invited to hold it against the generality of religious people.
But things are more complicated than that, of course. I, for example, would love to be Jewish, not only because this would allow me to stop my parents in law from inundating me with unwanted Christian paraphernalia during Christmas, but also because I love Klezmer, I enjoy some Jewish rites, I have made the strongest personal connections with Jewish people (including a friendship with someone who died three years ago, and after whom I will name my first-born son, due later in July) and I have nothing but admiration for the Jewish intellectual tradition. It is rather sad that one cannot choose one's ethnicity, and a consequence of it, in my case, is that I will always be taken for Catholic. If I have to live in the metaphysical closet, I'd rather spend my life disguised as a Jew. (Incidentally, this makes it especially ironic when the occasional clueless cyber-interlocutor calls me an antisemite, simply because I have qualms with Israeli policy towards Palestinians.)
I refuse to believe that I am all that strange a case for atheists. Nearly all of us have strong personal connections with people who are believers (my beloved Catholic grandmother, for example). I earnestly wonder if there are serious differences (in attitudes towards others) among right-wing and left-wing atheists. I imagine left-wingers are more likely to detest Christian conservatives, and that right-wingers are more likely to be Ayn Rand acolytes, i.e. virulent critics of altruism in all of its manifestations.
I would point out that this appears to say more about the inner desires of the 90% than it does about atheists...
Bull. The position of the ACLU is that the _government_ should not be out promoting any religious viewpoint in the public sphere. It has no objection, and in fact even defends, private individuals who want to promote religion three. I would say that the ACLU is far closer to the understanding of the founders on this than anyone else. The whole idea is that ALL powers of a limited government are things appropriated from the people. But religious belief is something no government has any right to. That power is retained 100% for individuals: none of it was or is ceded to the government. We don't elect our leaders to preach at us because we are already free to listen to any preacher we wish. We pay them to deal with our politics precisely because we are perfectly capable of handling and policiing our religion as individuals, communities, and in the founders time, states.
"I don't hold to the belief that in the main athiests behave worse than believers, they can and often do behave better than believers, but the problems lie in the fact that there is no objective meaning for virtues the athiests themselves draw up, what is "justice, fairness, etc." The athiest must define these for themselves, which some do fine, but what stops the athiest from changing their personal definition of morality."
It's this lack of understanding of morality that's most troubling to me about the way believers see atheists. I mean, you'd have to be really clueless about morality to think that anyone just sits around "drawing it up." That's not how morality works for anyone: that wouldn't BE a morality. I would wager to say that despite all the hubbub about God having something to do with morality, even for most believers, God doesn't. They'd believe the exact same things were wrong or right regardless of whether God existed. And why? Because no one can make any sense of how the existence of God is supposed to transform the amoral into evil. Would rape be okay if God said it was cool (well, heck: like God basically does in the Bible several times?) No. So why are atheists held to account for having "changeable" values? Heck, this coming from a religion who's founding tenet is that at one point in history, many basic moral norms changed all of a sudden without warning or any coherent explanation as to why something that once offended God would now be just fine.
"With athiest I know how they behave at the moment, but I do not know what they profess to attempt to achieve as far as a moral law for themselves. There is no way to know except from the individual athiest, the moral law that individual athiest himself is ordering his or her life by. It makes a systemic prejudice against athiests rational. Prove to me your moral bases are reasonable rational, and relatively immutable, and we'll go from there."
I think this speaks for itself. But, oh no, it's not rude or bigoted. It's "rational." Because we might spin around and eat a baby all of a sudden, unlike those trustworthy to a fault believers. I mean, you never know.
Please point me to some story, somewhere, that demonstrates Atheists--or the ACLU for that mater--attacking Christmas displays. Your statement brings forth imagery of a McCarthy-like atheist leader with his arms raised decrying the horrors of nativity scenes everywhere. Perhaps even a small group of ski-mask-wearing atheist thugs breaking into a church to steal a baby Jesus?
The truth is that the "attack" was not on Christmas displays, but on government-run and sanctioned (and often paid-for with atheist/Muslim/Jew tax dollars) Christian religious displays. I don't know of one Christian that would stand by and accept their government spending tax dollars on, say, decorations of a Wiccan naked dance/magic mural outside the local courthouse (with exposed body parts censored of course). It would be inappropriate and an extremely biased waste of government money. Not only that, but it would be an unconstitutional recognition of an establishment of religion.
So next time you see an atheist fighting against a Christmas display paid for by citizens, thank your deity that people like atheists are around to keep religion out of government. Next time the issue comes up, your particular religion might not be so popular. Or even worse, it might have become too popular--transforming normally moral and good-willed citizens into blood-thirsty fundamentalists who answer criticism with stones and nooses.
FYI: Wicca is the fastest growing religion in the U.S.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"
http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
The number of atheists in the population may be hard to measure. As I recall the number of people who self-identify as atheists is quite low, under 1%. However, the people who self-identify as "secular" or "areligious" is around 13%. I assume the self-identification is affected by the prejudice against atheists discussed here.
I would point out that this appears to say more about the inner desires of the 90% than it does about atheists...
I contend that the datum doesn't say much about the inner desires of that 90%, but that it does say quite a bit about its lack of imagination. It is easy to make misguided and utterly ridiculous statements about what one would be like if one believed X or Y. It takes intellectual courage to accept that one actually doesn't know exactly what one would be like if one believed X or Y.
Just a note: most athiests are agnostics. And most agnostics are atheists. Knowledge and belief are different measures, and you can claim one or not claim one without claiming or not claiming the other.
I've noticed this too. Overcoming that incorrect information is hard, but I've done it with a few of my theistic friends. Anecdote is not data, but the ones who can see clear to what I really believe instead of persisting to tell me what I believe and advocating against that strawman tend to be the ones most comfortable in their own faith. And I'm continually amused by the projection involved in assertions that I can't be trusted not to rape and kill because I don't have a god holding me in check.
That said, while my lack of faith just isn't that important to how I live my life, I consider it a very personal matter. I don't really discuss it with people I don't know well. I find the loud atheists just as obnoxious as the evangelists who don't know when to quit - same vice, really.
Your assumption that atheists only get married for tax reasons is a perfect example of the sort of the sort of reflexive anti-atheist hostility that this post decries.
Indeed, I wonder if the poll results would be the same if some sort of positively-defined but secular worldview was used in the place of "atheism" (eg, something like "secular humanism" or "ethical naturalism"). My guess is no--I bet a lot more Americans would be favorably inclined to such people simply in virtue of the fact that the term in question was based on a positive description of belief.
People know what answers will make them look boorish, uncivilized, uncouth, immoral or depraved. And absent very powerful incentives, they will lie to make themselves "look good", _especially_ to anonymous strangers.
And, as a practical matter, who in the right mind would respond honestly to a _telephone_ survey about religion? Odds are it would be part of an effort to market a religion (or atheisism). The last thing most Americans want to do is listen to a telemarketer, let alone a missionary trying to change their religious opinions.
When I was at the end of my teenage years I read first "The Fountainhead" and then "Atlas Shrugged," and saw myself as the next Howard Roark/John Galt, as I'm sure millions of others have done. Upon mature reflection, I have realized the utter hokum of this philosophy (while still enjoying the books as fun reads). Despite ray_g's apparent maturity beyond his years, my belief is that any 16-year old Eagle Scout candidate who openly declares himself an atheist has most likely come to the same conclusion I did (the nihilist half of the teenage atheist male population aren't Eagle Scout candidates). That boy needs to be disabused of this notion before he goes out and starts ruining other people's lives and then his own.
This has nothing to do with religion (or lack thereof), but questions without answers are some of the most interesting (see stuff about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and others).
I think generalizing from your own individual experience to all other teen "atheists" is an obvious mistake.
Suppose, for example, that two secular humanist parents raised a secular humanist son. I think it would obviously be a mistake to assume that a teen male who had become an "atheist" through that mechanism would somehow automatically have the exact same beliefs as a teen who followed your path.
Of course, all this really should be obvious, and I again attribute these pretty absurd stereotypes of "atheists" to the fact that "atheism" (unlike, say, "secular humanism") is defined solely as a negative.
I'm not some kind of nihlistic social darwinist, I have a plenty developed set of morals, I married the woman that I love spontaneously on a beach in the Carribian, without even considering the possible tax benefits...
Really, until I started reading this thread I had never given my atheism much thought, and presumed that no one else gave my atheism much thought either... I'm kind of taken aback by the about of ignorance and knee-jerk hostility that the very mention of this (rediculous) study elicited...
Uh... by their own policies, the Boy Scouts preclude themselves from having a positive influence on this imaginary boy.
The same should also be said of any 16 year old who holds firm belief in his own religion. Anyone that age is way too young to assume that they know all the answers to morality, God or non-God, the proper way to lead a life and so on. There are plenty of kids who follow in their parents fundamentalist footsteps and never learn about the real world out there.
The best course of action for any teenager is to have some beliefs, if they must, but be open to challenging them and the possibility of change. When I was a teenager, I was a fully committed Catholic. Now at age 44, I don't believe in even half of its teaching, and that's after doing plenty of research into the history of the church, attending services of other faiths, listening to athiests and agnostics, doing my own thinking and so on.
My favorite quote comes from Anne Morrow Lindbergh: Only through growth, change and progress, can true security be found. It there is one belief system I subscribe to, it is that.
Perhaps a strong does of atheism in the south would make those men less likely to hit their wives? Just a thought....
In fact, as one who became atheist as a teenager, and one who knows several others who did the same, I can safely say that you are completely off the point. Atheism isn't tied to any one philosophy. It merely occurs when one takes a critical eye to the assertions of religion(s) and decides that those assertions are unlikely, impossible, or even absurd.
I think that this is what a lot of people don't seem to understand about atheism. It isn't a concerted effort to go against popular belief, but merely a rejection of beliefs that are to us, unbelievable.
Allow me to frame it in a way that Christians might understand. Take some supernatural thing, such as Voodoo or the Greek gods. My guess is that you think these things are utter baloney. Why? After all, there have been many people that believe in these things. Is the fact that you don't believe in them an intentional assault upon them? Or, is it the case that you don't believe in them because you simply don't think they are true?
What is worse, an atheist who lacks this higher authority, or the Christian who knows that he is going to heaven because he loves Jesus Christ? After all, neither have anything to fear after death. Further, the Christian, confident in his future life, may not feel that he needs to be so careful in this one, whereas the atheist knows that this life is the only one he has, and that he must make the most of it.
My point, is that for one who declares, "I'm a Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc." One can generalize out from that, one can develop an expectation of behavior, why? Well, we have expectations of how the genuine believer should behave in each religion. Basically, from their declaration I have a general idea of why and how they should behave on a number of levels.
Now, to the athiest, one who declares as such, can not be known until you know him or her personally. One can not know what the moral code they are claiming to follow may be just from that declaration, they are an unknown. Now, can an athiest be a morally upright decent person...Sure, but can I know that's what they're (at least) aspiring to when they declare themselves to be an athiest? No.
So what's the prejudice,? People tend to fear and dislike the unknown, I have a hard time faulting individuals for this, as long as they are willing to reevaluate each individual. When someone professes the belief of "I don't believe" it just means that one can not know much about what they think they should do. At least with the declared religious individual, one can know what it is they think they should be doing. They could be lying, and after that trust would be broken, but I can say "I should expect X from him, because he claims to believe in a belief systems that expects him to do X."
After growing up amongst the godly, I would 100% trust an atheist before anyone professing their faith. I might rightly say that the most evil memories of my childhood have been perpetrated by devout christians. It wasn't the atheists who uninvited kids from their birthday party after learning that the invited kid's parents went to the wrong church. One of my sister's longtime boyfriends broke up with her in high school because his (church officer) told him to, because she didn't look like she would convert. [Even if that was just his lame excuse, I am happy to not count him as family as a result.]
In that environment social interactions were always kind of weird since the town was large enough that there were several physical churches for the dominant religion, so if you met someone new you could not know if they were a member at another "branch". The usual pattern is that you could meet people, get along swimmingly and then flunk one of the "secret handshake" tests. Things like are you going to event X, did you do Y or something of the sort. At this point the relationship almost invariably changed as you we being recruited to join, it was terribly transparent. Finally they would lose hope for converting you and you would be cut off as a friend or acquaintance, these have been some really bizzare conversations when they happened, "You know I really like you but I cannot associate with you because you are not a blank" IT was doctrinal not to associate with us heathens if there was not hope of saving us, it is still weird to think that so-and-so's religion said they can't be friends with me.
Now I have moved to the city and am in a different mix of people I still react viscerally to the code words and the petty mind games of aggressive religions. For instance my wife called a plumber recently who left his business card with one of the little Jesus fish on it. I see that as a proclamation that "I am in the club and all of you bigots, (sorry devoutly saved or whatever) that could not abide a non-christian plumber in your house can feel safe calling me." He will not get my business in the future, since I was raised as one of the unwashed, a lowly Episcopalian, and yes I am bitter. The reason we have the first amendment and freedom of religion in this country is to protect us from even those petty abuses that I suffered as a child. Now I am not discriminating against him based on his faith but rather on his pandering to those who do discriminate.
Now, I am sure that there is some sampling bias in my life story. If a high percentage of the people in your community are devout then the odds are that a high percentage of the scoundrels that you encounter will be also. But from my sampling there is a very high correlation between being devout and viciousness, deceitfulness, and just being plain evil. Now it may also be that those people were not "true" believers and where just hiding their innate sliminess within the trapping of religion. That may be the case but then it makes the proxy of religiosity to morality or trustworthiness even more suspect.
Someone who claims to be an atheist is almost by definition someone who is thoughtful about the matter, that alone is a big step up the ladder of human quality. Additionally, as I watch my kids grow up the fact that adults can assert that they are only "behaving" because god will get them if they don't scares the life out of me. My kids behave because they are good kids, they don't fear God's wrath they do what is right because it is right. Most adults are the same way I hope, I certainly am, but to hear so many proclamations that effectively say "I am a sociopath save for what I learned in Sunday school." Does make we worry a bit about those people around me.
I apologize for sounding presumptuous. Many Christians do of course understand this. The first sentence would better read, "Allow me to frame it in a way that Christians who misunderstand atheism might better understand."
Let me preface this by saying I don't really regard myself as an Objectivist, and have serious doubts as to whether the moral tenets Rand espoused can really be derived strictly from the philosophical premises she claims to start with. Nevertheless, it seems to me that your statements about what it means to "view yourself as the next Howard Roark/John Galt" don't really do justice to the moral worldview Rand did project and that for this reason your dismissal of the possibility of meaningful atheist morality is off mark. Since you've read Rand's works, you know that her ideal of the "virtue of selfishness" is a far cry from the unfettered pursuit of one's immediate interests without respect for others, yet you seem to be perpetuating this caricature in your statements. In fact, Rand's heroes believe there are plenty of things worth giving their lives for, and exhibit a degree of self-restraint in the name of integrity and principle that rivals that of the most religious martyr. They do not believe in a "higher power," but they certainly believe in higher principles that give their lives meaning. Again, I don't know whether one can really get to Rand's moral vision strictly from her premises--but people who espouse a morality based on pure faith in God certainly have no ground to criticize her on that score.
My son is a scout (who says he does not believe in God though he has not yet read Rand), and so I am familiar with the tenets of the Scout Law. If I had the time and inclination, I have no doubt that I could go through Rand's writings and find passages intepreting and espousing each of them, albeit perhaps in some cases with a somewhat different spin as to how they should properly be interpreted and applied. (Alright, for a few of them like Kind and Courteous I might have to turn to David Kelley &co., but that should be okay if Christians are allowed to rely on Paul as well as Christ...)
Anyway, my point is that morality has to do with a belief that one's character is as important to one's happiness as the satisfaction of immediate desires, and its goal ultimately is to tutor the desires so that they become consonant with good character rather than restrained by it. Belief in God is a device that certainly helps in this endeavor, but I don't think you've shown that it is either a necessary or a sufficient one.
I once read an AP story that referred to a town in Europe as "Bible Belt."