It's mildly ironic that the recent Dawkins discussion has centered around whether he does or does not do an adequate job of addressing the logical arguments for the existence of God, because that's one of the few areas where I probably agree with him. I don't find any of those arguments particularly convincing, either.
There are two real problems I have with Dawkins (and most other militant atheists, for that matter, but we'll use him as emblematic of the whole crowd). One of those problems is a matter of tact and tactics-- I think his whole approach to the issue is obnoxious and counter-productive. I don't think there's any good purpose served by pissing people off, while he prefers to go out of his way to say inflammatory things.
As I said, though, this is a tactical issue, and lots of people feel differently, arguing that the world needs Malcolm X as well as Martin Luther King. The bigger problem I have is that I think Dawkins and most other militant atheists are badly mistaken about what actually motivates religious people, and as a result are engaged in a misguided and self-defeating crusade.
As I wrote quite a while back, I think there are three different things that get grouped together under the heading of "religion": moral philosophy, mythology, and cultural tradition. Moral philosophy is instructions right action (all the "thou shalt not" and "love thy neighbor" stuff), mythology is the supernatural part (creation stories, miracles, etc.), and cultural tradition is everything else: fish on Fridays, pancake breakfasts, church socials, youth basketball. There's overlap between these-- particularly between the mythology and moral philosophy-- and they're hard to separate from one another, but these three aspects are present in all religions.
Dawkins et al. are fine on the first two. They're great at pointing out the hypocrisies of various religions when it comes to their moral philosophies, and at using science to poke holes in the mythology (not to mention coming up with belittling terms for various parts of it). The problem is, I don't think that stuff is what gives religion its real power.
To be sure, there are plenty of people out there for whom the mythological aspects are critical-- people who have a personal relationship with Jesus, or who spend huge amounts of time devising ways to explain the Grand Canyon as the result of Noah's Flood. But I think they're a relatively small fraction of the very large number of church-going people out there. Most people aren't religious because of a need for the existential comfort provided by the thought of a Creator watching over them, they're religious for social and cultural reasons, and for the immediate benefits of belonging to a community.
Dawkins walks up to the edge of this point when he notes that most people follow the same religion as their parents (see, for example, Ethan Zuckerman's talk report), but he draws the wrong lesson from it. The point isn't that children are being brainwashed to hold certain articles of faith without critical thought, the point is that religion is a social phenomenon, and serves as a kind of social and cultural glue holding communities together.
My paternal grandparents were very religious, but my grandmother wouldn't've known an ontological argument if it bit her on the leg. Religion, for them, was as much a matter of community as anything else-- they didn't just go to Sunday Mass at St. Stan's because it was a Catholic church, they went because it was their church. It wasn't a matter of doctrine-- there were at least three Catholic churches that were closer to their house-- it was a matter of identity. St. Stan's (after St. Stanislaus Kostka) was one of the focal points of the Polish community, and a great deal revolved around that church. Half the point of going to Mass was to talk to other people in the vestibule and the parking lot afterwards.
This is why I think Dawkins is way off base when he says it makes no sense to associate religions with children. When a photo caption refers to a child as a Sikh, they're not saying that that child has made a conscious decision to embrace the central tenets of the Sikh faith. They're using the term as a sort of shorthand for a huge range of social and cultural background. It's a way of associating that child with a whole community of people who have certain things in common, and as such is a perfectly legitimate thing to say.
This is also why I disagree with "projectshave"'s comment that:
Atheists should stop arguing about the existence of God. "God" is the name people give to the fog of ignorance on the borders of science. The real problem is religion. That should be a much easier target to take down.
Attacking God is the easy part. If you want to "take down" religion, you're going to find yourself coming up against deep-rooted issues of culture and identity, and people cling to that much more tightly than they cling to metaphysics. I haven't gone to Mass in years, and I stopped paying attention to official doctrine years before that, but gratuitously nasty remarks about Catholics still get my back up, because that's how I was raised, and it remains a part of my identity.
And that's why I think most militant atheist activity is ultimately pretty futile. When I think about religion in practice, I don't think about doctrinal disputes or ontological arguments. I think of decorating the church for Midnight Mass, of putting together bags of food for the poor, of my thesis advisor washing dishes at a church supper (a month after he won the Nobel Prize), of the cheerful Mormon youths who helped my former housemates move, of the crowded church at my grandfather's funeral.
That's what people really get out of religion. They get a community to support them in bad times, and celebrate with them in good times. And that's exactly where the militant atheist argument is weakest-- they're great at pointing out logical flaws, but have nothing to say about culture and tradition and community. Given the choice between a tight community with some dodgy metaphysical beliefs and rigorous logic with no community to speak of, most people will go with the dodgy metaphysics. I'm tempted myself, sometimes.
That's where I think Dawkins (and Myers, and Harris, and Dennett, and all the rest) is misguided. I think you could get people to give up the metaphysical stuff, if not for the social and cultural aspects-- God isn't the key to religion, community is the key to religion. The way to raise the standing of atheism is not to be more vehement about attacking the metaphysical beliefs of religion, because that only backfires-- people see it as an attack on the community, and draw together even tighter. If you want to make atheism more attractive, you're not going to do it by trying to make religion look worse. You need to offer something to offset or replace the social and cultural aspects of religion.
How do you do this? I haven't the foggiest idea. Atheist bake sales? Youth camps? Charitable works? It all sounds horribly corny, but I bet that something could be found, if people put a tenth of the effort into constructive social projects that they do into lectures and books and blog posts calling religious people stupid.
- Log in to post comments
But here's the secret, community building is hard. Calling religious people stupid isn't nearly so difficult and on top of that, doesn't really require much in the way of charisma or social skills.
I think that Dawkins and Dennett appreciate the importance of community that people get from religion -- it's the supernaturalism that they see as harmful. People who drift away from religion find other ways of belonging and of getting support.
I live in a part of North America that has very little religious activity (and Western Europe is much the same), but there is still a sense of community, or of many communities. In other words, that aspect of religion is quite easily replaced with secular groupings, and it happens without planning or direction. Atheists don't need to start bake sales, though that might be kind of fun. And they do charitable works, go to youth camps. We don't need to do those activities as atheists so that we can replace the Baptist Church.
My feeling is that if supernaturalism is beaten back in the U.S., people will gradually find their way to other types of activities that provide social support, as has happenned already in some other parts of the world, and within certain American communities.
I actually agree with this post. There's nothing wrong with the traditions, sense of community, etc. that bind religious people together. My problem is with the sort of absolutism grounded in God practiced by fundamentalists (and many not-so-fundies) of all stripes. It does not give people the intellectual freedom to reconsider old ideas. God said X is bad; it's now irrefutable. Atheists should press the point that no one can know what, if anything, God wants of us. Atheists should attack blind faith.
I'd be satisfied if everyone practiced the sort of watered-down religion that you're describing. But there is a growing strain of fundamentalism across all religions. They firmly believe that their ideas are in sync with a divine being. In the US, politicians frequently defend their positions on religious grounds. That's what pisses me off.
If you remove the link between religion and God, what do you get? People like you and I. I can enjoy Christmas without believing in Santa Claus. I can attend a Jewish wedding or chow down during Eid. My moral compass is defined by my Jain family and Midwestern Christian upbringing. But I'm willing to change when presented with new evidence or arguments. Strongly religious people will not change. That's the problem.
People who drift away from religion find other ways of belonging and of getting support... that aspect of religion is quite easily replaced with secular groupings
I strongly disagree. Show me an atheist youth camp; show me the volunteer organization I can join where the majority of my fellow volunteers will not be religious.
Chad, I think, has it exactly right. The strongest (and best!) part of modern religion is its community aspect, and there is NO non-religious equivalent. I find myself looking for it in the research community, and finding exactly nothing. (We use the term "research community" a lot, but it's a misnomer; "research field of bitter, angry competition" might be closer to the mark.)
I agree with this so much I could have written it. I do think in catholicism the cultural part is a little stronger, or perhaps the religious part is a little weaker in that there have always been a lot of "Catholics" who don't attend mass, but you will see them at the parish picnic, or at a fish fry, etc. They may even help coach a youth team. Maybe they show up for Christmas and Easter. Thus the social ties are proportionately more important. Plus the number of catholics that use birth control contrary to the church teaching is about the same as anyone else so there is a disconnect somewhat.
One option for folks who can't stomach the metaphysics but want a sense of community is the Unitarian Universalist church. Their metaphysics is almost nonexistent (my grandfather, who went to a UU church for the last 10 years of his life or so, said that they prayed, "To Whom It May Concern;" he considered himself an atheist), and their moral philosophy seems compatible with most secular humanist ideals. The people who I know who go to UU churches do so almost entirely for reasons of community. Many of them went to more traditional churches as kids, and they miss the bake sales and the like.
Myself, I don't go to UU services, because I have no particular interest in being part of such a community, but several members of my family seem to get a lot out of it.
Sorry, Chad and Bill Hooker - I just don't get it. I have NO need for the "community" aspect, or any aspect of religion. Born and raised a Catholic, married to a fundy Lutheran, and have no desire to meet and greet current or old congregation members. Religion to me is nothing but a bunch of superstitious nonsense. Why would anyone want to hang out, or even talk to people with a world view that includes this kind of belief structure? You are welcome to it, but I just can't see it. Means nothing to me.
While I agree with much of what you say, we differ on two important points:
First, I suspect we differ as to the number of people in each respective camp, if you will. I have a friend who, every time I talk to him, seems much more interested in his religion as a means to acting properly in life than in the theology or social aspects of it (although granted, we haven't spoken in any great substance about this.) And of course I know the social and the theology types.
But I think there's more people interested in the theology of it than you do.
Second, I think you (perhaps unintentionally) draw up a false grouping system-- some people are interested in the philosophy, some in the theology, and some in the social aspects. If you define that in terms of primary interest, that's absolutely true. If you define that in terms of interest, though, that's just not true; more, that's what this atheist tends to find so creepy and disturbing about the whole thing.
Let's assume it is true that the overwhelming majority of people really do partake of their religion for the social aspects, mostly on cultural autopilot. Okay, fine. Problem is, it seems to be ridiculously easy for the smaller subset of people whose interest is in the philosophical and theological to effectively hijack that sense of community to purposes that just make no sense to us poor godless heathens. (Or are actively dangerous.)
Now, I'm not banging my fist on the table yelling, "Something must be done!" I have a little more historical perspective than that. Awakenings, Great and small, come and go. This, too, shall pass. I'm just sayin', even though you may be right, that's not the great comfort it might otherwise be.
J-Dog: Sorry, Chad and Bill Hooker - I just don't get it. I have NO need for the "community" aspect, or any aspect of religion. Born and raised a Catholic, married to a fundy Lutheran, and have no desire to meet and greet current or old congregation members. Religion to me is nothing but a bunch of superstitious nonsense. Why would anyone want to hang out, or even talk to people with a world view that includes this kind of belief structure? You are welcome to it, but I just can't see it. Means nothing to me.
Congratulations. You're a strong and wonderful person. A shiny gold star for you.
Novak: Let's assume it is true that the overwhelming majority of people really do partake of their religion for the social aspects, mostly on cultural autopilot. Okay, fine. Problem is, it seems to be ridiculously easy for the smaller subset of people whose interest is in the philosophical and theological to effectively hijack that sense of community to purposes that just make no sense to us poor godless heathens. (Or are actively dangerous.)
Absolutely. Specifically, it's easy for politically motivated people to make adherence to some specific point of theology or ideology a condition for continued membership in the group. That's a large part of why I'm not a church-goer, and why I don't like the mingling of religion and politics.
It's also why I think something needs to be done or said about the community aspects. If there were non-religious outlets for people to get the community benefits of religion, there would be less of a need for some of them to support slightly unpleasant political positions. As it is, you can toe the line on, say, gay marriage and continue to get the benefits of a church community, or you can hold a sane view on gay marriage, and go it alone.
There ought to be another option.
Excellent post, and something I have long thought myself.
I tried attending UU church once, and the problem was that it was a church. Having been raised atheist, I'm very uncomfortable with that setting.
I don't know that atheists will ever offer an alternate community to religion. I think it more likely that people will find other community outlets, such as gathering over hobby or political interest. Of course, these communities are not nearly so encompassing as a church, which gathers people under a more generalized header.
Bill Hooker, I went to a youth camp that had no religious aspect to it at all. There is no need for an "atheist" youth camp. If you can't find a volunteer organization that isn't made up of mostly religious people, that may be a function of where you live, because there are certainly plenty where I live. Or perhaps you aren't looking.
If you simply mean that there is no exact equivalent to a church community in the secular community, well, that's true by definition. So what?
If societies that are very similar to that of the U.S. can move away from religion, as they quite happily have, there is no reason that the same thing can't happen in the U.S., over the course of generations.
Wonderful, wonderful post. I haven't agreed with other things you've posted about atheism, but I think you really nailed this one. And as a former Catholic myself, I can relate very much to some of what you feel (and miss).
Another excellent post. After seeing Dawkins on the Colbert Report, I've been thinking more and more on the issues of religion, atheism, etc.
On one hand, I am extremely concerned about what I see as a tide of irrationality with a religious element to it in America. When I see how well "Left Behind" sells and realize that there are people who would welcome a world war as they think Jesus would come back, I get a might bit worried.
On the other hand, I have watched how, for instance, Dawkins has become a lighting rod for what I shall kindly call people overenthusastic about their religion, and I've detected a lot more atheist bashing the last month in my casual surfing of fundamentalist discussions and news sites. I worry that the miliant atheism, or whatever we call it, can backfire - a lot of the, ahem, "overenthusiastic" seem prone to conspiracy theories and paranoia, and feeding them doesn't help.
Yet, at the same time, people do need to be able to say they're atheist, and it's OK.
I have come to wonder if a lot of, at least American Culture, has some pathology or cultural elements that prevent rational discussion of religion among people. If somehow our culture is just unable to handle an actual, sane dialogue about religion. And for many of us, we wonder if the only options are to keep quiet, or shout at the top of our lungs.
Just some thoughts.
J-Dog: I just don't get it. I have NO need for the "community" aspect, or any aspect of religion
I've failed to get my point across to you here: I'm not talking about missing anything religious, just the community part. I think EVERYONE needs community.
Richard has got me right, when he talks about ways to be part of something larger than oneself that don't revolve around religion. But he and I have obviously different experiences, and he's more interested in snark than discussion -- "or perhaps you're not looking", dude, what the fuck is that about? If you want to talk, fine; if you want to fight, stick your head up your arse and fight for breath, I've got better things to do with my time.
Bill -
see www.camp-quest.com for an example of atheist summer camp.
Granted it is not yet nearly as large a presence as that seen by religious-backed organizations. Let's fix that!
~cut~
While I agree with much of what Chad says, it seems that he is saying that we should not attack the foundations of religion (the theology and mythology) but that we should set up some form of parallel structure that replaces the social and cultural comforts provided by existing religions. Is this a fair representation?
If so, then I have to ask; how do we then communicate to the religious that they should look outside thier happy place for a new happy place? And convince them that the happy place we built is any better than the one they have?
What gives us (atheists) the idea that we can invent a new social and cultural identity that religious people should just switch to in the first place? Besides, do we want to involved in a situation that really amounts to controlling other people by telling them what to think and feel (in other words, to be atheists) by using the club of "social" and "cultural" identity? No, we cannot make others change thier cultural identity because we call them stupid or irrational. That will pretty obviously nor work.
I am of the opinion that something should be done about the harm that religious belief can cause. Before we rush around screaming and shouting, we need to live up to our own principles of rational thought. We need to consider, as Chad certainly seems to, the full scope of the problem.
I think that Dawkins, Dennett, Myers, etc... DO know that there is more to religion that just superstition and moldy theology. They have simply concluded, right or wrong, that the correct approach is to knock out the foundation blocks that are accessible to the tools of logic and science. Culture identity and social functions do not yield so easily to the tools at our disposal. Why is that?
Could it be that perhaps, we humans are incredibly social animals? That we need our our social and cultural identities in such a deep and fundamental way, that it is nearly impossible to do away with them, once created. What the more vocal among us atheists are doing is expending effort where it will do the most good (not the best good, just maximizing effort). What we do then is give people the tools to knock out the silly, irrational, superstitious parts of thier own cultural identity and replace those parts with more reasoned ones. People will do this identity rebuilding on thier own because of their powerful need for social identity.
It is an important distinction, that people have to choose to do this and not have it imposed from without, by some authority. Otherwise, what makes us different from religious authority? That is why so many vocal athiests such as Dawkins attack religion the way they do.
I don't want people here thinking that I am writing this in uncritical defense of Dawkins. In fact, I do believe that Dawkins and others (especially certain bloggers) take the strident rhetoric too far. Surely it is counter-productive to piss off your target audience. That doesn't make the targets (superstition, irrationality, bigotry, etc..) wrong, however.
Like the historical example of the Enlightenment, we need to present the overwhelming facts and power of reason that we have at our disposal. We must be patient and persevering. We must never fail to speak out when necessary, as loud as necessary, and as long as necessary. This can be done without attack and vitriol. It must be without personal attack of what are essentially human characteristics that we all share. We should be loud and vocal and hammer away at the harmful parts of religious belief. To do this without causing the people we are trying to reach from retreating into a defensive shell, we should recognize ALL of the factors that contribute to the power of irrational institutions. We should use our social and cultural identity as atheists and humanists as an example for those who need that kind of support. Maybe atheist bake sales are a good idea. It seems that we atheists have a lot of work ahead of us to come together and present a united image of a shared identity that we can show, as opposed to tell, others about our mesage.
Getting off the soapbox now.....
Aw crap. It's me who's picking the damn fight, and I'm sorry. I honestly don't know why that crack from Richard jerked my knee so hard.
Besides which, Richard, I mostly agree with you: youth camps are a good example of what I was asking for, I probably could look harder and find less-religious volunteer groups (though honestly, I have looked and they're not plentiful) -- and there are lots of countries at once more secular and no less community-oriented than the US.
So again, I'm sorry about the aggro. Maybe I have more of an emotional investment in this topic than I'm aware of.
Well, to tie it in with another post made somewhere in blogistan not-too-long-ago, in its heyday, I suppose you could say that there were various facets of UseNET that provided a community of sorts. All you all rasfwrj regulars had a pretty good thing going for a while. I never really comprehended it because I was an ass and never could quite reconcile the fact that the posts I was reading came from real actual people who actually cared about each other, but it's obvious you did. And it was a pretty widespread, farflung community too with the only thing in common being an initial liking of the Wheel of Time...
I've been mulling this point over in my mind for some years now. I think your basic thesis is spot on. It seems to me that what atheists can do is to offer an alternative that includes cultural/community elements. Something like this:
The Church of Freethought
If you could actually offer community and tradition, regular socializing, you might have some success. The hard part is convincing people that you're not eating babies or sacrificing animals during your meetings. Or at least, that you're not looking to chisel in on their flocks (to mix some metaphors)
I think some of what you say about social aspects being more important may be true, especially on the coasts. But I think you're generalizing from yourself and your friends too much. I have strong and deep ties to the 'heartland'. It's where I lived for 37 years; my family still lives there. And if you don't think the moral guidance/right living thing that comes from the metaphysical side is important to people, well, you don't have the same experiences I do. It's especially important in judging your neighbors' moral rectitude/right living. What the pastor tells them on Sunday about God and how he wants people to behave shapes how they view and interact with the world. Not understanding the importance of this to vast swathes of this country makes it harder to understand why people vote against their economic interests, why they think abortion is murder, why they won't listen to you.
MKK
Blaine: While I agree with much of what Chad says, it seems that he is saying that we should not attack the foundations of religion (the theology and mythology) but that we should set up some form of parallel structure that replaces the social and cultural comforts provided by existing religions. Is this a fair representation?
More or less. I'd probably put it as "we should not just attack the foundations of religion," because I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out the flaws in the mythology and moral philosophy parts.
The key difference is that Dawkins and Harris and Myers believe that atheism hasn't succeeded in overthrowing religion because we haven't attacked the mythology enough, and the solution is to be even more shrill and unrelenting in denouncing those part. My feeling is that atheism hasn't succeeded because they're neglecting the social aspects, and you're not going to get anywhere without dealing with them. Being more obnoxious about mythology without somehow addressing the social issues is actually counterproductive.
A few commenters have pointed to the difference in intensity of religious belief in the US versus Western Europe, and I think that's related. Europe isn't overrun with fundie loons not because Europeans are somehow less susceptible to religious belief (a thousand years of religious wars demonstrate the flaws in that argument), but because the social dynamics are different. In European countries with stronger social welfare systems, a lot of the roles filled by churches in the US are filled by the state. With less of a need for those social aspects of religion, there's less of a need to buy into the metaphysics to obtain them.
If you look at areas where religion has a strong hold in Europe, you find them in former Soviet bloc countries (where religion served as a locus for political protest), failed or failing states, and marginalized immigrant communities. That's no accident-- religion is strongest where it has a major social role to play.
(Or, at least, that's my half-assed theory of what's going on...)
If so, then I have to ask; how do we then communicate to the religious that they should look outside thier happy place for a new happy place? And convince them that the happy place we built is any better than the one they have?
I'm not sure that attacks on the metaphysics of religion and the development of alternative social outlets necessarily need to be linked in an explicit manner. If you buy my version of what's going on in Europe, they're not-- the rise of the welfare state was areligious, not anti-religious, and the deleterious effects on religion are a side effect.
In fact, I think it might make things tougher if you were to explicitly link them, at least in the beginning. The Richard Dawkins Pre-School for Free-Thinking Children would probably be a lightning rod.
But I think a lot of good could be done by establishing or supporting community organizations that are not religious, and don't make a big deal about it. If you build strong community groups that don't depend on religion to bring people in and hold them together, you provide alternatives for people who might want some of the benefits that religious communities offer, without having to hold particular political or theological views to get them.
It's a hard problem, though, because of money. The Catholic Church can run CYO basketball leagues as a loss leader, because they've got buckets of cash, but it's hard to start from nothing. I think it would be a better use of time and resources than trying to ratchet up the anti-religion rhetoric yet another notch ("These go to, um, 13...").
Mary Kay: I think you're generalizing from yourself and your friends too much. I have strong and deep ties to the 'heartland'. It's where I lived for 37 years; my family still lives there. And if you don't think the moral guidance/right living thing that comes from the metaphysical side is important to people, well, you don't have the same experiences I do. It's especially important in judging your neighbors' moral rectitude/right living. What the pastor tells them on Sunday about God and how he wants people to behave shapes how they view and interact with the world.
Absolutely. The components aren't always cleanly separable.
In fact, I would say that if you think that what you describe is just about metaphysics, you're badly mistaken. Agreeing with the pastor is a precondition for membership in the community, and social effects are a huge part of how churches enforce belief in the mythology and moral philosophy parts of the religion.
I would also not that judging the moral rightness of one's neighbors is not an exclusively religious impulse. We're not exactly suffering from a lack of judgmental atheists, after all-- if we were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If the social aspect of religion is what is keeping it afloat, all atheists may need to do to outlast religion is to wait. All measures of social participation in the U.S. have been declining for decades, as Putnam describes in detail in Bowling Alone. However, while I wouldn't mind the disappearance of the church, this decline in social involvement is a problem for the nation, so it's good to read the ideas for secular opportunities for social organizations.
Consider that Dawkins and most of his peers are themselves invested in the academic community, as are many of the bloggers here. If you rope in the scientific community and various other intellectual communities (some online, some not), I bet that would cover most of the bloggers and their respondents. Schools, discussion groups, even lecture series, all represent "our version" of what church activities provide to many folks. Maybe we should be putting effort into organizing interest groups at all levels of our local schools and adult-education centers?
Similar thoughts from the Mad Biologist.