David's post about Christianity, Judaism, and proselytization gives me an opportunity say a few words about the interesting subject of whether atheists should proselytize for their position. The strong pro-proselytization stance of atheist writers such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins leads many people to assume that proselytization is an inherent requirement of atheism, or at least that most atheists put a high priority on persuading theists of the nonexistence of God. Neither claim is true. The majority of atheists have little or no commitment to proselytization. And to balance Hitchens or Dawkins, there are atheist philosophers such as Michael Martin, who defend "friendly atheism" - a generally nonconfrontational approach to theists (for those who may not know; Martin is one of the most important contemporary philosophers of atheism).
Believing that God doesn't exist does not commit the atheist to also believing that it is important to convince others of this truth. There are many false beliefs out there; we can't make a priority of changing all of them. Many are better left alone because they cause no harm or because our time and effort is best devoted to other matters.
One possible justification for atheist proselytization is that religious beliefs are often used to justify harmful practices. For example, various religions have defended slavery, sexism, racism, and religious intolerance. This is true enough. But the same can be said for various secular ideologies that have also promoted injustice. One of the weaknesses in Dawkins' and Hitchens' claims that theism is a uniquely dangerous source of harmful beliefs is their failure to come to grips with the record of harmful nonreligious ideologies such as communism and fascism (note that "nonreligious" does not equal "atheistic" - most fascists, for example, were theists; it merely means that religion is not an essential part of the ideology).
Atheists can and should oppose harmful religious beliefs. But they should also oppose harmful nonreligious ideologies. Belief in God does not in and of itself commit the theist to supporting injustice, anymore than rejection of that belief commits an atheist to any particular ideology or moral system. Atheists (and theists) should make it a priority to reduce the influence of dangerous religious ideologies such as radical Islamism. That is not the same thing as putting a high priority on reducing belief in God in and of itself. If adherents of radical Islamism abandon their views in favor of atheism - as Ayaan Hirsi Ali courageously did - well and good. But the same practical results could be achieved if they instead embrace a more liberal and tolerant version of Islam.
The key point is that one does not have to be an atheist to be a moral person or to oppose injustice. Atheism is neither a necessary nor a sufficient prerequisite for either.
An alternative justification for atheist proselytization is that religious belief can impose unnecessary costs even when it doesn't lead to any coercion or injustice. For example, some theists obey strict dress codes and dietary laws out of what atheists must regard as a mistaken belief that they have been ordered to do so by God. Persuading these people of the validity of atheism would free them of unnecessary burdens. In some cases, it could even radically transform their lives for the better. Consider the case of Hirsi Ali and other women who come to reject religious doctrines that justify drastic (even if voluntary) restrictions on the role of women in society. Here too, however, the problem is not belief in God in itself, but the theist's secondary beliefs about what kind of behavior God commands. The latter, not the former, should be the primary target of reformers. Moreover, most voluntarily accepted religious burdens don't exactly rank high on the scale of serious social problems. We have vastly more important fish to fry than the possibility that Jews who keep Kosher are needlessly foregoing the chance to dine on lobster.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that aggressive proselytization could damage our image and our relationship with theistic groups, many of which have a lot more political power than we do. This would be a risk worth taking if proselytization were a vital moral imperative. But since it isn't, the pragmatic dangers of overly aggressive proselytization should not be ignored. I don't myself believe that aggressive proselytization (of either the atheist or the theist variety) is morally reprehensible. But I'm in the minority on that point. There is no reason to needlessly antagonize those who think otherwise.
My bottom line: Atheists should not hesitate to defend the validity of their beliefs when challenged. And we should actively combat anti-atheist prejudice and discrimination. But I don't see any compelling reason to make a priority of atheist proselytization.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Atheism and Proselytization:
- Ann Coulter, Christian Chauvinist:
And you are right, most atheists don't actively proselytize. But instead, an increasing number of atheists do something as obnoxious: openly smirk about how stupid non-atheists are (in the minds of atheists). The classic example is the Darwin fish (or the amphibian eating the IKOYE fish, as well as other examples). If there was an atheist logo one could attach to one's car, that would be one thing. But some atheists instead resort to mocking a Christian symbol which is harmless and low-key in itself, as a way of mocking Christianity. I would like to assume that atheists don't realize how offensive that is, but I tend to think that the offensive nature of it is part of the point.
The biggest obstacle to atheists becoming more widely accepted isn't bigotry; this country tolerates all kinds of beliefs, reasonable and loony. The biggest obstacle is that a good number of atheists can barely hide their contempt for non-atheists.
I don't think that is the case. Lots of religious groups have significant elements that feel "contempt" for other beliefs, or even believe that those who follow other beliefs will be consigned to hell. Atheists are far from unique in that regard. That has not prevented most such groups (including Muslims and Christian fundamentalists) from gaining greater social acceptance than that currently enjoyed by atheists. Yes, atheists are harmed by other atheists who say dumb things about theists. But taht is not the main cause anti-atheist prejudice.
It's sort of like how some people accuse gay couples of "flaunting their sexuality" for merely walking down the street holding hands, or for kissing at a party or bar or other context where straight couples' kissing would be unremarkable. The accusation is really an expression of the accuser's ignorance.
If someone asks me, "What do you think about Jesus?" and I respond, "I really don't think about Jesus much, because I'm an atheist," this is not proselytizing. It's merely answering the question. It's inappropriate to come back with "Why do you atheists always have to preach at us?"
I don't disagree. When I wrote of atheist "prosetylization," I meant deliberate efforts to persuade theists to abandon their belief in God. Merely saying that you are an atheist or that you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus isn't proselytization.
As for the Darwin fish, at least to me it doesn't mock Christianity in general, it mocks those varieties of Christianity that reject science in favor of myths created by our ancestors, which, without evidence, they attribute to a deity for which there is no evidence. In any context other than religion, basing one's beliefs on such "evidence" would indeed expose one to ridicule. Why should religion be exempt?
Second, given the tendency of some religions to at the same time proselytize and take offence at irreligious messages, I think it is important to remind them that exchange of ideas is a two-way street (indeed, that their message should be examined and adjudged as an exchange of ideas).
I find this to be very muddle-headed and backwards thinking. The existence of non-existence of a supreme being carries enormous epistemological implications. It is the basis upon which one makes (or fails to make) existence intelligible. It is the basis upon which we can begin to think about having any positive effect on reality.
Thus, to suggest that one should consider the effects on reality that one's religiosity or irreligiosity will have is an extreme form of putting the cart before the horse.
Tim Kowal
thanks (well, not really) for instructing me on how to allocate my time spent in opposition to the various idiocies which pervade public discourse.
This blog, for example, has felt it necessary to post a number of defenses of its silence on significant legal issues, like extraordinary rendition and torture. Are those defenses in error? Is silence consent?
When was the last time that you, Ilya, spent substantial effort opposing the harm created by this Administration's position on the state secrets privilege? I look forward to reading your amicus brief (co-authored, of course, by your co-conspirators) petitioning the Court to grant cert. in Al-Masri. Sorry it was denied. Important issue, though.
(As another example, I note that you have written nothing about Ms. Malkin's shameful conduct toward the Frost family. Am I to take your silence as consent? Or is her ideology -- the politics of personal destruction -- not harmful?)
Putting the sarcasm aside for a second, GO POUND SAND. Plenty of people spend plenty of effort exposing the evils of fascism and communism. If I (or PZ Myers) choose to spend my time exposing the evil of the Catholic Church but somehow fail to mention that Pol Pot was bad too, that's my decision, and not for you to comment on.
More to the point, who are you to decide what atheists as a group believe are harmful ideologies? Put all of us in a group and I'm quite sure that the list will include capitalism, communism, libertarianism, the Republican party platform, the Democratic party platform, universal health care, American-style health care and various forms of music. The only thing that we are sure to hold in common is the idea that there is no evidence of god(s). Let's leave it at that.
final question: do you have any evidence to support the claim "many people [] assume that proselytization is an inherent requirement of atheism"?
And atheists are accused of proselytizing or worse when they stand up for keeping church and state separate. The only way for government to stay neutral about religion is to stay out of it and to keep religious endorsement out of government.
Likewise, atheists are accused of proselytizing when they argue that only science should be taught in science class. That is not proselytizing atheism.
Religions can't agree on the origin of man, the solar system or the universe. Reason and evidence-based science are the the only neutral turf about such matters.
It is important for athiests to stand up and support the separation of church and state and attempt to minimize the harmful effects that occur when religion dictates public policy. That's not to say that one should go around and tell theists they are wrong...but you should tell theists that they are wrong to restrict my rights based in their beliefs.
Ultimately I don't really know if religion is on net harmful or helpful. I lean towards harmful but if I wanted to do good in the world I'd try and educate people about economics or try to convince them to be more concerned about the welfare of people in other countries. The reason I sometimes have arguments about the existence of god or theism has nothing to do with ultimate world good. It's simply that when someone says something really really really wrong and you know that many other people believe it you feel like beating them over the head with the evidence.
I mean suppose 90% of the country believed that the world was flat, including otherwise very educated noteworthy people. Can anyone here really say they wouldn't feel the temptation to exclaim, "But you can see it's round from space."
I think most atheists don't think they are doing anything different than proponents of the flat tax are doing or people who really want to irradiate beef or build new nuclear power plants. While all these activities may technically be proselytization we don't call them such so I think the word gives the wrong flavor.
I think this is a misrepresentation of Dawkins' and Hitchens' positions, and their books. I've read both 'The God Delusion' and 'God is Not Great' - I don't think either men claim that religion has the monopoly, as you explicitly attribute to them of being - "uniquely dangerous".
Well the argument not put forward by Iilya, is that theism, in its most common guises - Christianity and Islam - is
subversive or the faculty of reason. It inculcates 'faith' in the religious sense - that is believing extraordinary claims in the face of lack of evidence. It even punts religious 'faith' as a virtue. This is really not good for critical thinking which impinges on so many spheres of life.
Fortunately many theists manage, somehow to., as it were - hemisphericaly seal this unreasoned and unresonable aspect of their World view to cover a very limited domain. Alas sadly, in all too many instances however, there is 'overspill' of this lack of reason, outside of the personal space, which impinges on others.
Now I don't proseletise as an atheist, but I occasionally don't let pass unchallenged religious claims made in my presence. All too many theists have been given a free run for far too long, while sceptics bite their tongues.
In this shifting the zeitgeist respect, I think the books of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens, will serve us well.
My lack of belief in deities is but one category of supernatural claims, that I am sceptical of. That made by various theistic sects about their being one or more omnipotent, omnipresent intelligent entity micro managing the cosmos. I think such a claim is unsupported by ANY evidence and what's more, it begs more questions than it answers.
Positing a deity - of whatever strip - doesn't to my mind, cut it as a good explanation for anything. To borrow from Dan Dennet it's a 'skyhook' theory, and skyhook theories don't explain anything, only 'crane' theories do that.
I don't define myself as an atheist anymore than I define myself by my sceptisism of the existence of goblins, fairies or Santa, or any other supernatural claim.
Nick - South Africa
Funny, Christians use the same argument. They say that when a person is doing something sinful, they should be told and, if needed, forceably stopped from sinning for their own good.
The analogy with gays is apt in this regard. They will often say that if you really love a gay person, you will do everything you can to have them stop being gay, since it is so harmful to them.
Additionally, as to proselytizing, it's the same as well. A simple statement such as 'gays exist' is often cited a 'promoting homosexuality,' especially if it's in the context of teaching at school. To them, if you don't actively say 'homosexuality is sinful, horrible, disgusting' and so on, then you are 'promoting homosexuality.'
I disagree. There is a fairly pervasive deference shown to religious belief in our society, e.g., special excuses from school for religious holidays but not UFO sightings. Now if you really want to make religion a truly private thing than that's fine, but it then needs to be really private. It is unfair to let the religious person express their beliefs in all the myriad little ways we allow but deny the atheist, who has a primarily intellectual belief, the one way to make his beliefs clear.
I mean I know that one of the reasons I hesitated about becoming an atheist for so long was that I saw lots of people expressing religious belief but even the atheist members of my family didn't express their own. There really are plenty of people who don't realize that atheism is a plausible option believed by good reasonable people and that is largely because it is considered rude to bring the discussion up while it is perfectly okay to visibly engage in religious rituals in public.
Besides, whether or not you are an atheist you should be horified at how little people know about their religions. If religion is true it's the most important thing EVER and time spent discussing and understanding it is way more important than almost anything else you could talk about. I mean how could it be reasonable to believe in god and spend more time working on your math homework than thinking about theology?
Besides, I think if more people actually had to discuss and thus think through their religious faith they would change many of their beliefs (or even become atheists). For instance if most catholics actually thought through most of the official dogma they would have to either discard the importance of papal statements or seriously modify their personal beliefs.
A pragmatic choice when one is in the minority.
Funny how some people take open offence when they see a fish with feet sticker, but take it for granted (a god-given right?) that displaying their kind of symbol is A-ok. Every church is an open display of religiosity. I don't see any Atheist meeting houses. Fortunately we aren't at the point where one feels compelled to openly agree lest one faces open oppression for being a non-believer.
It may not be a bad thing to have office-holders with strong Christian beliefs, perhaps they occasionally serve as a constraint against abuse of power.
As opposed to when the President of the USA (Bush 41) publicly says that atheists can't be good Americans?
I don't go around parading my atheism, but when I respond to statements like that, or to someone questioning me about my beliefs, I am often accused of proselytizing. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses (and a certain Baptist congregation near my home) that come ringing your doorbell, you have to go looking for a website such as Raving Atheist - but some Christians leave comments on it making it clear they view it's mere existence as offensive and intrusive.
All I can think is that those Christians must be horribly insecure in their beliefs.
Quite wrong you are. Atheists merely lack theistic beliefs. There is no creed or holy document that atheists can be plugged into like theists can. Say you are a protestant christian and while you might protest your own independent mindedness, your sect's version of the bible will fairly unequivocably have you pegged as not being of the catholic version of christianity. With substantial certainty your publically held beliefs could be accuratly predicted and your church peers would probably agree that you are 98% through and through whatever you are.
With atheists nothing similar exists. Ask a fellow atheist to describe my belief system and they would be quite pressed to come up with anything beyond my non-belief in a god.
Rememer too that non-belief is different than what you think it is. I don't believe in god for the same reason you (presumably) don't believe in the easter bunny. For you 'knowing' that there is no easter bunny is not a powerfully held belief that constitutes a Truth; it is nothing more than the rejection of a lighthearted childhood story.
So too it is for many atheists. Dawkins rabid non-belief is almost as curious as your (presumed) belief. Most I think merely reject religious postulates in the same manner that most people reject the notion of fairys, leprechauns, goblins, and other supernatural things.
Well, yes and no. I agree that some people think God commands very bad things, and some believe that he commands good things, and the former deserve our attention more. However, I also believe that when someone is convinced that an imaginary all-power being has given them instructions that they must follow there is always a possibility of bad things happening. As long as people think God talks to humans, absurd results will follow.
I wasn't aware that atheists had an image to damage with theistic groups....
I think atheists should "proselytize" in a non-doorbell-ringing way. The percentage of atheists/agnostics in this country is absurdly low compared to other advanced, educated societies. Atheists are still treated as immoral and disgusting people in America and the 21st century, and silence is not going to change that.
this may be true of some riligions, or some religious people, but is not universal. Judaism has very little theology compared to some other religions. Its preoccupation is with the way (God directs that) people should behave twards other people and to the non-human world. In traditional Judaism there may be few morally neutral acts. But to essentially all Jews, being a productive member of society is very important and so, thjerefore, is math homework.
I do not discuss the religious beliefs of others out of relative ignorance, but suspect that people such as Albert Schweitzer, St. Vincent de Paul, and Mother Theresa exemplify the attitude of Catholicism and Protestantism toward the material world better than the quoted excerpt above describes it.
Really? The uses to which Hegel and Neitzche were put early in the 20th century make me suspect this is, in fact, completely wrong.
From the standpoint of everyone else, what one does is almost invariably more important than what one thinks.
That's probably because one is a positive affirmation, and the other is a negative attack. People in Boston won't like it if you wear a Yankees hat, but you are more likely to exchange words if you were a "@#$% the Red Sox" t-shirt.
And the irony is that Einstein and a bevy of prominent quantum physicists would be the first to admit the existence of a transcendental consciousness. Yet, the college bio majors who're proud atheists are quick to label anyone who doesn't suscribe to the man-as-machine model as dumb and science illiterate.
The merger between spiritualiy and physics is on its way. Look out for it friends. It'll be wonderful, and it'll put to bed all these circuitous. question-begging arguments about misunderstood religious beliefs.
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Extant non-religious societies have reproductive rates far below those needed to maintain demographic stability. It is hard to trace an irrefutable causal link, but the correlation between religion and reproduction rate is strong enough to convince me that this is a real phenomenon.
Furthermore, religion provides support for the idea that people should be responsible for one another, at least for one's co-religionists. Is this good or bad? What balance between indipendence and community leads to the highest degree of happiness and fulfillment? This is hard to say. But independent of the truth regarding existence of God, religion is beneficial to people in many regards. We may need God more than He needs us.
Elmer Gantry"Dr." James Dobson can get a hearing in any respectable or semi-respectable forum, I'm glad somebody like Hitchens is out there.And any way, I've never really understood the logic of the complaint, "You have no right to criticize A so long as you don't also criticize B," where there appears to be no entailment relation between A and B.
How so? People would stop going to church? Well, that might actually increase the number of people going to Sunday brunch instead. I don't see how that's so bad....
Ah, yes. Pulling out that old science vs. religion card.
Hundred years ago, science couldn't explain tons of things either. The point is that science is a search for what is knowable, but always knowing that the knowable might change. We just go with the best answer. Science might someday explain consciousness. Then what argument will you have?
It can't be merely that atheism is a contentious theory. Teaching evolution is contentious, and no one whose opinion should be valued thinks we ought not to teach evolution.
It can't be that there's some sort of principled disagreement that atheists should honor or recognize; from an atheist's perspective, the idea of gods lacks epistemological merit, and 5.5 billion theists are simply mistaken.
And it can't be that the existence of gods is an unimportant question. Those of us chattering in this thread are pretty apparently committed to its importance.
So I see little reason to regard atheism as the one fact about the world we should be particularly assiduous in not talking about as fact. One should be about as "proselytic" about atheism as one is about the age of the earth, the color of the sky or the time of day.
Like providing medical care to dependents of Xtian Scientists?
You've stomped all over the distinction between creed and religion in this post, but most egregiously here. Creed isn't secondary in any meaningful way, except in constructing an anti-thiest's strawman. Non-creedal religions and their members suffer from very few of the "evangelical" athiests' complaints. Leave us out of it, please.
Possibly not even that. At this point in my life, I'm pretty much an atheist. However, I still go to church when visiting my family. The music is nice, it forestalls some family arguments, most of the moral values set good examples for my nieces, and it's easier than trying to instill a comprehensive secular rational morality into kids.
If my nieces ever get to the point where they decide, like Santa Claus, God is just a parable for children, and ask me about it, I'll give my thoughts. In the meanwhile, I see more harm than good from proselytizing.
This doesn't mean I won't point out the inevitable circular nature of the arguments for Faith when some fanatic tries to use them to justify the idiocy of the day. But I won't bother trying to dissuade Jimmy-Rob Redneck next door from going to church, since I suspect his fear of Invisible Sky Wizard's wrath is the only thing keeping him from taking pot shots at the neighbors.
Nick Good - South Africa: Well the argument not put forward by Iilya, is that theism, in its most common guises - Christianity and Islam - is subversive or the faculty of reason. It inculcates 'faith' in the religious sense - that is believing extraordinary claims in the face of lack of evidence. It even punts religious 'faith' as a virtue. This is really not good for critical thinking which impinges on so many spheres of life.
Faith, however, is itself useful. Who was it that talked about acting 100% certain when you were only 51% sure? That sort of confidence is socially useful, in situations when a limited effort in multiple directions merely insures multiple failures. The key is that faith ought only be called to serve when reason is somehow inadequate.
RainerK: Funny how some people take open offence when they see a fish with feet sticker, but take it for granted (a god-given right?) that displaying their kind of symbol is A-ok.
SP: That's probably because one is a positive affirmation, and the other is a negative attack.
I'll agree that the amphibian-eating-fish is an attack, but not the vanilla Darwin fish. That it's perceived as an attack merely indicates how evolution is widely misunderstood, by proponents and opponents alike. Animals evolve, as do ideas; but the world has both fish and amphibians in it... and sharks have been around for a long, long time. Long enough that I'd bet there will be sharks after all the mammals vanish.
Both Jesus and Darwin "fish"es are affirmations of the truth of the respective beliefs; the attack is in the minds of those who see them as exclusive. As a computer systems administrator and a (student) engineer, I believe that an omniscient God (should he exist) would also be Lazy. If evolution will do what you want with minimal effort, why not use it?
You mean, "it hasn't yet." The merger you describe is at least as likely to be science-driven than anything else.
Except that Dawkins isn't a rabid nonbeliever. He's made it clear that, much like you, I'm sure, he only finds the possibility vanishingly improbable, but would be (again, like you and I) open to evidence.
Funny how this is (willfully?) overlooked by the "I'm not like Dawkins" crowd.
Huh? Are you sure? There are lots of theories explaining how consciousness could evolve. For example, many animals can understand that there are other objects in the world - in the same way that prey look around for predators before they drink water. It doesn't take much to recognize yourself as part of that model.
I don't claim that the problem is solved, but as someone else asked, are you going to change your mind science does explain consciousness? (Or when AI is invented?)
What are you talking about? Einstein repeatedly said that he did not believe in a personal God. Add to that list Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, etc....
Many studies have shown that atheism/agnosticism increases drastically with education, reaching 93% among the members of the National Academy of Science. So it's not just the "college bio majors"
These societies are also wealthy, and in wealthy societies children cost money instead of bringing it in. I'm not sure whether irreligion or wealth is the root of low birth rates.
Avoiding future 9/11s and ending the drug war would not require that religion be exterminated, but knocking the starch out of widespread public respect for religion would help.
We should be grateful to have articulate proselytizing atheists.
But that doesn't mean that all atheists need take that tact. In particular, Illya should continue writing every day the way he does so well.
Sunday church service replaced not by even the Sunday paper but by Sunday brunch. "Behold! I present to you the last man."
They are both pro-rationality. They are only "anti-theists" to the extent religion promotes irrational and hateful thoughts and actions.
Second, and this is also for Chris Bell: you kinda prove my point when you state "Einstein repeatedly said that he did not believe in a personal God." The key word is PERSONAL. He's referring here to the Santa Claus theory of God that I and my atheist brethren find so repulsive. If he believed in the man-as-machine theory, there'd be no need to qualify the word "God" with "personal."
I can't repeat the phrase "transcendental consciousness" enough. That's the point. Spirituality and quantum physics will merge b/c they share a common foundation, which could be summed-up in one word: INTERCONNECTIVITY. They both refer to a "mind field" that permeates everything.
I could go on and on, but why here it from me when you could read the works of people a thousand times smarter? (and I'll send links to anyone who'se genuinely interested) Suffice it to say that I had a transcendental, Near-death-like Experience because of which I will never see the world the same again. I was lucky. I guarantee that if anyone in the man-as-machine camp did too, their views would likewise change.
Einstein was a pantheist, who often referred to the laws of nature as God. In the same vein, Stephen Hawking ended A Brief History of Time by saying that once we had figured out the deep laws of the Universe we would "know the mind of God."
So, no, these men would not accept a transcendent consciousness. As for a "transcendental consciousness," I did a Google search and I'm skeptical.
I certainly believe that things are all connected in a beautifully simple (yet still intricate) way. I don't think many people would disagree with that.
On the other hand, I don't want to pay $29.99 to reach my 4th level of consciousness, as many websites offered.
And I have just no idea what you mean by the "man-as-machine model." This is the most direct website I found, and it seems to be clearly loony to me.
Somehow I don't picture Einstein buying books and CDs to learn how to become a human "Spiritual Master."
You state "Somehow I don't picture Einstein buying books and CDs to learn how to become a human 'Spiritual Master.'" Perhaps not. But the point is that some of the biggest intellectual breakthroughs in our history have been achieved in an altered state of consciousness. As the Psalm says, "be still and know God." Einstein was not "actively" thinking when he realized that e=mc squared. An equally good example: DNA was "discovered" by Francis Crick while he was on acid. And what if I told you that there's a guy alive today who sees numbers as shapes and colors, and is a human calculator?
Anyway, research "aether physics" and "sacred geometry" if you seriously wanna know what I'm getting at.
Peace.
You stacked the deck at the beginning by stating that an atheist "believes" that God does not exist.
Please explain to me how my rejection of the "belief" in a supreme being is in itself a "belief".
To be an athiest requires accepting a definition of "god". It's obviously ridiculous to state that you don't believe in anything with the label "god" applied to it. You have to define what it is that you don't believe exists.
Atheists completely fail to do this.
Does athiesm mean a failure to believe in the judeo-christian god? I think obviously not - there are many religions that have different god concepts. People who believe in them are not considered athiests.
Does it have to do with worship? Obviously not again - it's easy to believe in a specific god without worshipping it. Those people aren't athiests either.
Is there a generally accepted definition of god which athiests can claim to categorically reject? I don't think so, or at least I've never heard it. Any such definition would be rejected by Christians - I can't imagine, for example, Satan not falling under a general definition, and Christians aren't going to go along with that.
It makes much more sense to me to say: I'm not religious. If you present me with a religious claim, such as a specific definition of "god," I'll tell you what I think of it.
In that sense, just saying you're "athiest" is very close to proselytizing. The word - by definition - says: I accept your definition of "god" and claim that it's false. Why would you go around telling people that their specific beliefs are wrong? That's at best rude, if not inherently proselytizing.
So I agree with the generalization that athiests are assholes. It's true by definition!
Actually, Penn and Teller did an episode on their Bullshit! show that thoroughly debunked the near-death experiences that people talk about. It's actually a survival mechanism and can be induced at will by scientists.
Unfortunately, your premise is wrong. Therefore all that follows fails.
Atheists don't require any definition of god. Or think of it conversely, that any definition of god that you come up with, even a flying spaghetti monster, atheists would say that unless you have actual proof, then there is no god, however you define it, him or her.
Randy, you prove my point:
any definition of god that you come up with, even a flying spaghetti monster, atheists would say that unless you have actual proof, then there is no god, however you define it, him or her.
That's a flatly ridiculous position - not believing in a word, no matter how defined.
Thought experiement: I'm quite new age and define "god" as all the energy in the universe. Now athiests are forced to either a) accept "god", b) reject energy, or c) say "Oh, that's not what I mean by "God".
Obviously they do 'c' - which means they do have some definition of god. But they never say what it is. And the reason is because if they did, it would be really obvious that the definition is designed to explicitly reject other peoples actual specific gods. What's the motivation for that other than assholiness?
randal: No, atheism does not require accepting a definition of God, nor does it require believing anything - except that, as in all other matters, the burden defining "god" ... lies upon those claiming that "god" exists.
So athiests reject god a priori, before even hearing the definition? That's a pretty assey maneuver if you ask me.
That's no big deal. Most theists lack a definition, too.
I dunno, just some guy? It's an un-category, it doesn't need a name. What are you if you are "without belief" in goblins? Some dude, I suspect. Unless you're a lady. I don't know what a Romra is.
Saying you're not religious is stupid. To be irreligious requires accepting a definition of "religion". It's obviously ridiculous to state that you don't believe in anything with the label "religion" applied to it. You have to define what it is that you don't believe exists.
"Religion" is very easy to define compared to "god".
If somebody presented a generally accepted definition of "god", then my argument would go away. Such a definition would also help in the pledge / money debates.
I'm sure we're all very impressed by your opinion. Even more impressive would be some kind of evidence or argument to back it up.
Having read numerous works by Dawkins and Hitchens' "god is not Great," I think you are misrepresenting their positions (straw man). Dawkins and Hitchens advocate rationality and happen to believe that atheism is the only rational position about a belief in god (depending on how "god" is defined). More importantly though, while both advocate standing up for one's beliefs, neither "commands" atheists to proselytize their beliefs. While they suggest it, nowhere do they argue it is an inherent requirement of atheism. Atheism is a position on one existential proposition, not an entire philosophy. At best, it could only be a foundational premise.
Secondly, there is a vast difference between the sort of active proselytizing that Christians feel they are required to take part in ("spread the Good news" and all that) and atheists responding to the inquiries of curious people. As many here have already pointed out, few atheists are actively going door-to-door spreading the news of atheism. I fail to see how atheists being reactive is similar to theists actively proselytizing. It seems you are using some ambiguity in the term to compare to different types of actions which may or may not have the same motivations. While atheists can be reactive with the motivation of converting theists, they may also simply be reacting out of defense of their beliefs. Theists who actively go out seeking to convert others are obviously different.
Finally, it would seem to me that if "many people [] assume that proselytization is an inherent requirement of atheism . . . ," based on the actions of two or three atheists they are probably committing some fallacy of thinking. Now what would that be, oh yeah, a hasty generalization! It would seem to me that if the person is a liberal Christian, or non-fundamentalist, the right thing to do would be to point out that it would be wrong for atheists to assume proselytizing is an inherent part of every theism simply because some theologies promote it. The first thing to do when encountering sloppy thinking is to correct it in the hope of improving that person's critical thinking skills.
As I pointed out above, I agree with your first sentence here. However, I do not agree with your following two sentences. I agree, as time is a scarce resource, that certain false beliefs should take priority over others, particularly those that cause the most harm (this ignores the obvious argument over how "harm" is evaluated based on one's moral philosophy). However, as a person who values true ideas above all else, I do not believe that false ideas are ever better left alone (excluding certain extreme conditions).
Again, I'd like to criticize your use of "proselytation" here considering the negative connotations the word tends to carry and the vast difference between the actions of atheists compared to theists who we normally think of as proselytizing (generally only those that are actively seeking to engage others for the sole purpose of conversion).
However, my main part of contention with this part of your post is the idea that both Dawkins and Hitchens have failed to come to grips with the harms caused by certain secular ideologies. I suppose this stems from your belief that Dawkins and Hitchens are only advocating atheism as opposed to advocating reason. Both Dawkins and Hitchens are critical of any system that supports uncritical acceptance of positions, that pushes dogma. Sam Harris points out that it is uncritical acceptance of dogma within these non-religious belief systems that leads the populace to wide-scale acceptance of obviously fallacious justifications for atrocities. Dawkins' responds in "The God Delusion" that while non-religious ideologies have committed atrocities, they have not used atheism to justify them. After all, it is hard to justify killing Jews or capitalists or traitors to the state simply because you do not believe a god exists. Hitchens goes further in his work, "god is not Great." He points out that the unifying characteristic between fascism and Nazism (both of which at best could be characterized as non-religious, but certainly not inherently atheistic) and communism (Stalin's version, not Marxist) is totalitarianism, by which he means a system which "demand[s] that citizens become wholly subjects and surrender their private lives and personalities entirely to the state, or to the supreme leader." This surrender of self is what allows for atrocities to occur according to Hitchens.
Both have certainly "come to grips" with the atrocities of non-religious ideologies and the sections they devote to discussing fascism and communism in their respective books, which were aimed at criticizing religion as non-rational as opposed to offering a defense for non-religious political institutions, shows they feel it is important enough to address these criticisms to allow for a digression from their respective works actual focuses. I suggest you read chapter seventeen, "An Objection Anticipated: The Last-Ditch "Case" Against Secularism" in Hitchens' work "god is not Great" if you haven't already.
I do not think any of the "new" or "militant" atheists have suggested this, perhaps you could point out where they have? Then again, I could be taking this the wrong way - perhaps you are just pointing out to everyone an obvious conclusion as opposed to raising a criticism?
This is a value judgment you have made, and I do not see a lot of argument here to support that conclusion. You can argue that it is the secondary beliefs that have a real-world impact, but others will argue that undercutting the metaphysical justification for those secondary beliefs is far more effective. I'm sure you have put a lot of thought into this, but presenting it here as a valid conclusion without at least the caveat that there is another argument seems disingenuous, especially since both have strong points.
The truth is, the vast majority of atheists are not actively proselytizing in the sense that it is commonly used. Rather, as others here have noted, atheists tend to defend their beliefs when asked, or point out inconsistencies in the thinking of others. Other times they may just be defending scientifically valid conclusions, like evolution or inflationary Big Bang theory, etc. While the majority of theists do not see this as atheists "proselytizing," the religious right has used their clout to argue that it is and validating that idea by suggesting it is here is wrong. Moreover, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens' works are published novels that do not actively intrude on others lives nor are they seeking to passed faith-based legislation or threatening presidential candidates with the withdrawal of large voting blocs if their "demands" are not met. No, until atheists rise to the point of door-to-door conversion attempts or demanding "God does not exist" be printed on American money we are not close to "aggressive proselytation."
Sorry for the rant.
If you're claiming to deny the existance of God, it's fair to ask what exactly it is that you're claiming doesn't exist. You can't punt and say it's up to the believers to define it. You affirmatively deny it exists... well what is it?
There's lots of things you can call yourself if you happen not to believe in any dieties. The term "athiest" implies a more active determination that a specific category - "gods" - is definitely empty.
In other words, you don't have to define something in order not to believe in it. In fact, sortof by definition, you don't believe in the things you haven't defined, like glow-honkeys. But you do have to define something in order to claim that it does not exist. I don't believe in glow-honkeys, but I'm not making a scene going around saying that there aren't any. The statement doesn't even make sense - "There aren't any glow-honkeys" - without defining what a glow-honkey is. In addition to happening not to believe in any gods, athiests go around claiming that there aren't any (by calling themselves "athiests").
Despite the 'evils' done in the name of religion (which I discount anyway, as 'evils' have been equally done in non-religious causes), religions overall perform a needed and vital social good.
The underlying tenets of almost all religions are based on the rules and norms that individuals need to abide by for large social groups, and mankind as a race, to function and prosper. Any misuse of these by people against people is simply the nature of Man, not a shortcoming of religion.
Religion provides a safety valve, a cause for hope, and for some, a set of rules and consequences for disobeyal that are needed to keep society functional.
The fact is that I, and others, do not see the need for a divine connection for those rules to have value, and agree that civil behavior for the common good is a virtue in of of itself.
I hold no gripe against those who have and need faith in their lives, and only ask the same in return.
What atheism means is different from atheist to atheist, similar to how "god" is different from person to person.
I, like the majority of self-described atheists I've met, am atheistic in the sense that I lack belief in the existence of a "god." What this means depends heavily on how one defines the term "god." If one defines that concept as the Trinitarian god, YHWH, then I believe that concept of "god" does not exist (different than not believing a god exists). I, like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, find the concept of a fully-divine and fully-mortal Christ that became one being and three beings simultaneously is logically nonsensical. Therefore I actively believe that "god" cannot exist.
This is far different from my position towards a deistic conception of "god" or perhaps Spinoza's pantheistic conception. For these concepts, I do not believe they exist as opposed to conclusively stating they cannot exist.
The person making the positivistic, existential argument that these particular conceptions of "god" do exist bear the burden of proving their propositions. Russell's teapot analogy perfectly illustrates why this is the default position in both science and philosophy.
Also, I'm not sure who was addressing Einstein's beliefs earlier in the comments, but I'm not sure how positive we can be that Einstein was even a deist or a pantheist. Here are two relevant quotes from Einstein:
So he does not believe in a personal "god" and at best, accepts Spinoza's definition of "god" as nature itself. Spinoza was ostracized from his Jewish community because they viewed his philosophy as essentially atheistic. As a Jew himself, and as a well-educated man, Einstein would have been acutely aware of this fact. Could this have been a subtle hint at atheism by him?
Victor Stenger seems correct to suggest that Einstein's "god" could just as easily be called "nature."
It may seem like an unimportant distinction, but it matters, especially to people who do believe in god / gods. This is a lot of why atheism gets such a bad rap. Most self-described "athiests" aren't actually athiests, and then get surprised when they are looked on with disdain by people who do believe in god and assume that athiests are what the word says - god-deniers.
People who believe in god don't have the same reaction to, say, Buddhists, even though Buddhists also don't believe in any gods. Buddhism isn't premised on "denying the existence of god / gods" - it's just it's own thing. No problem.
To generalize... people who believe in god aren't particularly bothered by people who don't believe in their god. They are bothered - understandably - by people who make a point of rejecting their god.
So just don't believe in god if you don't want to, and leave it at that. No need to turn it into an -ism.
The terms "atheist," "atheism," et al., all are etymological descendants of the Greek atheos. The term meant "godless, without gods, forsaken" and was interchanged as a slur among the ancient Greek philosophers. My own name is a Greek term that was used against Christian apologists in the 2nd and 3rd century C.E. by pagan philosophers.
As noted by the term "without gods," the term did not originally mean "someone who denies the existence of a god or gods," rather, as illustrated by its composition, a-theos, it was someone who did not believe a god or gods exists. It seems you have the history of the word confused.
The majority of religious people I have met do not have the same reaction to Buddhists because they are ignorant that some forms of Buddhism can be godless. Moreover, Buddhists tend to be less vocal in their criticisms of theism in general and Christianity in particular. Christians also have only relatively recently been exposed to Buddhism in comparison to its long history of vilification of atheism.
Any exclusive religion makes a point of rejecting the "god" concepts of other religions. After all, the majority of fundamentalist theists would argue that their "god" is entirely different from the imaginary "god" of other religions. Simply look at separate Protestant sects, or at Christians and Muslims, or Christians and Jews. Some Jews making it a point of rejecting Christians trinitarian concept of God, while some Christians find even the suggestion that YHWH and Allah are the same entity offensive.
And I suppose the history of religious wars had nothing to do with the other theism believing in the wrong "god" (I am not suggesting there were not contributing factors, but using religion certainly made it easy to justify to the masses)?
The label was not created by atheists, it was given to us by theists.
Exactly. So why is it so readily accepted? It's an epithet. I don't believe in any gods, but I don't accept the label "athiest". I don't fit the dictionary definition. Calling myself an athiest would imply that I care more than I do. I don't define myself by my lack of belief in things.
Ohh get over it. Illegal aliens don't define themselves as illegal, most thieves, arsonists, vacationers, daydreamers don't define themselves in those terms. The language just sensibly has words for grouping people with a particular feature in common.
You can call yourself what you want, but if you do not believe in any concept of "god" you are still an atheos, without gods.
Anyone, like you, who is an atheist understands that the term fails to convey anything about us other than our position towards one existential proposition. Even the definition clearly establishes that the only thing known about a person who admits they are an atheist is their lack of belief. However, while when you are asked by a theist what you believe you might respond secular humanism, etc., the moment you say you do not believe in a "god," in my experience they usually respond by saying you are an atheist. While they may draw unwarranted conclusions from this admission, it doesn't change the fact that by common convention you are an atheist.
Simply because you do not like the negative history towards the word does not change the fact that you fall under its definition.
Most atheists define atheism precisely as lack of belief in god, not as the claim that an undefined god doesn't exist. So your objection to atheists fails on those grounds alone.
There is a subcategory of atheists who go further and actively deny that god exists. These people are called strong atheists, and those remaining are called weak atheists.
There are many definitions of god that are in fact precise enough that one can accurately claim that such a god doesn't exist. Any self contradictory definition falls under this category. It is perfectly rational to be a strong atheist with regards to any gods defined this way. This category includes the god of the Old Testament.
In his book "The New Skepticism" author Paul Kurtz proposes a definition for yet another subcategory of atheist, the igtheist. An igtheist takes the term god to be a referent but one which the theist has not explained well enough to the igtheist to understand to what it is referring. So the igtheist does not believe in this god thing precisely because he doesn’t understand it.
You on the other hand are approaching this from the opposite direction. You are claiming it is the atheist who has this word god in mind but that he doesn’t have a definition for it. You are claiming that if I have a noun, N, that is not defined by me to refer to anything that it is "stupid" to claim "N doesn't exist". That’s quite different than having someone else use a word that might just be referring to something but that isn’t being understood the atheist.
Your invented word glow-honkey is just such a noun. You claim it was made up and has no definition. I’ll take your word for it. So it’s not that I don’t understand what glow-honky means. I understand it perfectly because it means nothing, and has no existing or even potentially existing class of objects to which it refers. The phrase “Glow-honkeys do not exist” is not ill defined because we know the purpose of a noun, which is to refer to something, and in this case the noun is defined so that it doesn’t refer to anything. This is like a well defined word that refers to something that doesn’t exist. In both cases the set of things referred to is empty. Just because the word also fails to refer to anything potential either is not a problem.
I can make up a noun humpalumf which refers to pink elephants. Supposing there are no humpalumfs then the set of existent referents is empty. However, it is potentially possible for pink elephants to exist so the set of possible referents is not the empty set. This is unlike the noun square-circle which refers to something contradictory. Such a noun has no potential or actual referents not because it doesn’t have a definition, it does, but because the definition is self contradictory. Such a noun has the same exact properties as a noun without any definition whatsoever.
I can say with much greater confidence that “There are no square circles” than I can say “There are no pink elephants” precisely because both the classes of referents are the empty set with the former. Likewise a noun that has no definition also having no actual or potential referents I can make a similarly strong statement about the fact that it having no referents there can be no existing thing to which it refers.
Therefore you are terribly wrong. If the atheist has no definition for the word god then he can say will absolute an full confidence, “God doesn’t exist”, and furthermore “glow-honkeys, bozorts, glanfenorkins, and woozles don’t exist either”. I made those words up too and they don’t mean anything either. Boy, I’m such a “stupid” “asshole” for doing that. It’s almost like I flew a plane into a building or something religious like that.
I can't find it in me to discount evils done in the name of religion on this basis when the actual principles taught would naturally lead to evil if taken literally.
I can no more do that then discount the 'evils' done in the name of Nazism or Communism. You must remember that both are moral systems. In one case a moral system where the good is defined as eliminating the Jew, and in the other eliminating the Bourgeois.
When the bible says "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live" or advocates the stoning of homosexuals well then when someone acts on that infallible advice I tend to place the blame in part on the instructions.
Can anyone tell us why they don't believe in unicorns? Can they prove uncorns don't exist? How about the Tooth Fairy?
Anyone ever heard of the problem of communication and how it is evidence against the classic conception of "god"?
I see that my first post was very hard to read. So I edited it. Here it is again but more readable ...
Most atheists define atheism precisely as lack of belief in god, not as the claim that an undefined god doesn't exist. So your objection to atheists fails on those grounds alone.
There is a subcategory of atheists who go further and actively deny that god exists. These people are called strong atheists, and those remaining are called weak atheists.
There are many definitions of god that are in fact precise enough that one can accurately claim that such a god doesn't exist. Any self contradictory definition falls under this category. It is perfectly rational to be a strong atheist with regards to any gods defined this way. This category includes the god of the Old Testament, as Atheotatous pointed out above.
In his book "The New Skepticism" author Paul Kurtz proposes a definition for yet another subcategory of atheist, the igtheist. An igtheist takes the term god to be a referent but one which the theist has not explained well enough to the igtheist for him to understand what “god” is referring to. So the igtheist does not believe in this word “god” precisely because he doesn’t understand it.
You, on the other hand, are approaching this from the opposite direction. You are claiming it is the atheist who has this word “god” in mind but that he, the atheist, doesn’t have a definition for it. You are claiming that if I have a noun, N, that is not defined by me, the atheist, to refer to anything and that it is "stupid" to claim "N doesn't exist". That’s quite different than having someone else use a word that might just be referring to something but that isn’t being understood by the atheist.
Your invented word glow-honkey is just such a noun. You claim it was made up and has no definition. I’ll take your word for it. So it’s not that I don’t understand what glow-honky means. I understand it perfectly because it means nothing, and has no existing or even potentially existing class of objects to which it refers. The phrase “Glow-honkeys do not exist” is not ill defined because we know the purpose of a noun, which is to refer to something, and in this case the noun is defined so that it doesn’t refer to anything.
This word “Glow-Honkey” is similar to a well defined word that refers to something that doesn’t exist. In both cases the set of things referred to is empty. Just because the word “Glow-Honky” also fails to refer to anything that could even potentially exist is not a problem for the debunker of belief in “Glow-Honkies”, in fact it’s works better for him. Let me explain.
I can make up a noun “humpalumf” which refers to pink elephants. Supposing there are no existing humpalumfs in the universe. Then the set of existent referents is empty. However, it is potentially possible for pink elephants to exist so the set of possible referents is not the empty set. Since the debunker of the existence of pink elephants can’t see everywhere and there is a potential for one to exist he cannot make the blanket claim that “Humpalumfs don’t exist” with absolute confidence.
This is unlike the noun “squared-circle” which refers to something impossible. Such a noun has no potential or actual referents. This is not because it doesn’t have a definition. It does. A squared-circle is a defined by how it is created. It is defined as “A square constructed with the same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge.” Since it is know to be impossible to construct a square this way we know that “squared-circles” don’t exist.
Don’t be confused by this a squared-circle is actually a square and not a circle.
A noun such as “squared-circle”, which defines something impossible, shares an important property with nouns which haven’t any definition whatsoever. That property is that they both have no actual or potential referents.
I can say with much greater confidence that “There are no square circles” than I can say “There are no pink elephants” precisely because the former has no actual or potential referents. This level of confidence is also available when the noun has no definition precisely because it has no actual or potential referents.
Therefore you are terribly wrong. If the atheist has no definition for the word “god” then he can say, with absolute an full confidence, “God doesn’t exist”, and furthermore “glow-honkeys, bozorts, glanfenorkins, and woozles don’t exist either.”
I made those words up too and they don’t mean anything either. Boy, I’m such a “stupid” “asshole” for doing that. It’s almost like I flew a plane into a building or something religious like that.
I have never heard of weak versus strong athiesm. My guess is that very few people have. My point is that confusing the two causes misunderstandings. Especially since most athiests think they are weak, while most non-athiests think the athiests are the strong type.
I'm not sure what the practical difference is between weak athiesm and igthesim. Is igthesim a subset of weak athiesm?
You're right that glow-honkey is a word I made up and isn't defined. You are fine to say that "there are no glow-honkeys" in that context. You are not fine to say - as strong athiesm does - that "there are no glow-honkeys" in general - the point being that glow-honkey is a word that is defined by the individual. Someone else may define glow-honkey to be some arbitrary set. Saying that potential sets you haven't heard about are empty is assholic.
That is, "god" is not like your word "humpalumf" which has a reasonably discrete definition. It's also not like "square-circle" in my opinion - I think that would be a hard case to make (and in any case, almost no one makes it).
That is, I don't think it's a problem to say, ok, tell me about your god / glow-honkey. Ok, yeah, no, I don't believe in that. It's only a problem to say, no, don't tell me about your god / glow-honkey, just by applying the term "god" / "glow-honkey" to your belief, I reject it a priori.
Dawkins deals with this at some length in his recent book, and it's a quite common distinction among athiests. The strong athiest flatly says that god does not exist; there is no chance of god existing. The weaker athiest says the probabilities that god exists are so small that he lacks a belief in the existence of god just as he lacks a belief in the existence of unicorns, Tooth Fairies, leprechauns, and that orbting teapot.
Likewise, Dawkins identifies the strong theist who absolutely says god does exist; there is no chance he does not exist. The weaker theist says it is so probable that god does exist that he will believe and act accordingly.
Dawkins further tells us neither the strong atheist nor the strong theist are on firm intellectual ground. Neither can back up their absolutist positions.
Note that both the strong theist and strong athiest find common ground in absolute denial of the existence of unicorns.
You two agree on strong - it means an active denial of the existence of god / gods.
Brian says that weak means merely not happening to believe in any gods without making (non-)existence claims.
You say it is a matter of probability.
I would say that this thread is proof positive that the term 'athiest' needs to be abandoned - no one agrees on its meaning.
My motivation here is to get self-described athiests to stop self-describing themselves that way. For all the reasons exposed in this thread, it's a very difficult position to defend - definitely not worth it. Instead of continuting to give people that don't believe in god (like myself) a bad name, let's regroup. Athiests are the fringe radical extremists. We are the mainstream.
I really think you should read my above post again.
Both Brian and Elliot agree on what strong atheism and weak atheism are - they both agree that strong atheists actively deny th