Chris is a cognitive psychologist (Mixing Memory). He claims to be a proud Neville Chamberlain atheist. He writes about Religion and Social Critique.
While I think it's obvious to anyone with eyes (a category that seems to grow smaller by the day) that within the anti-religious bigotry today there is an underlying feeling of superiority, an unliberal belittling of the little guy, a feeling that "Joe Schmoe" is stupid and to some extent worth less than the intellectually righteous secularist, ...Whoa! I think he's talking 'bout people like me here. First of all, I'm not a bigot. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about rationalism and superstition then it's best to avoid that term unless you can back it up. Second, I do feel strongly that my opinion is better than contrary opinions. Are there any other possibilities? Are there some people who feel that their opinions are unworthy? Thirdly, some of the people who believe in superstitious nonsense really are stupid. And they really are bigots—yes, I can back that up.
(Incidentally, I'm sure that in the interests of fairness, Chris has posted a strong criticism of the bigotry and intolerance of religious leaders in the USA. I look forward to getting the URL to those postings.)
... there is another element to rabid atheist criticisms of religion that I find both disturbing and puzzling. As many of the comments to my recent post and Pharyngula's post on the same topic illustrate, these criticisms of religion are largely based on its perceived social and political effects. That is, the critique of religion by these atheists (let's call them Churchillians) is a social critique.Oh, that's a relief. It's not me he's referring to. My criticism of religion is based on the idea that its supporters believe in supernatural beings. That's a delusion because there's no evidence of supernatural beings. The fact that some religions are sexist, racist, and homophobic is incidental. I'm well aware of the fact that this doesn't apply to all religions. I'm equally opposed to the more liberal versions of religion because the underlying premise is wrong, in my opinion.
This is the part that Chris and his fellow appeasers don't get. They oppose the extreme versions of religion because of the outward manifestations of social behavior. But they give a free pass to all those superstitions that don't recruit suicide bombers or put women in the back pews. I don't make that distinction. To me the battle is between rationalism and superstition. The social critique is secondary.
What I find disturbing and puzzling about it is its naïveté. As I believe fellow ScienceBlogger and Chaimberlainian atheist Razib has pointed out before (I don't have a link right now, but if he gives me one, I'll add it later), religion is such an effective user of our cognitive and social composition that it falls naturally out of them. So naturally, in fact, that there is no reason to believe that religion is going away, much less that it is possible, through accusation and invective, to facilitate religion's demise. In other words, as social critiques go, the Churchillians' is about as ineffective as you'll find.Chris, I'll let you in on a little secret. I don't hide my light under a bushel just because I think my chances of changing the world are slim. So, even if it were true that the USA will always be strongly religious that wouldn't be a reason to keep quiet. I don't believe that America is going to accept gays and lesbians anytime soon but that's not a reason to give up the fight. Or, do you think it is? Do you advocate an appeaser position toward homophobic bigots on the grounds that you'll never change their minds?
But, setting the illogic of your argument aside, let's think about the future of religion. European societies became more and more secular in the 20th century. Canada is much, much less religious than the USA. Do you really think that America will resist the change? I don't. Furthermore, I think your statement that the "Churchillians" are being ineffective is patently absurd. Richard Dawkins has done more to stimulate debate about atheism than hundreds of appeasers. Although you misrepresent his position, the fact is that by being blunt he has got people's attention and that's the first step toward getting them to question their beliefs.
Would it not be better to recognize that the content of specific religions has, historically, varied according to the spirit of the times, and therefore the most effective avenue for social critique is to focus on changing that spirit, thereby necessarily effecting change in the content of religion? If you want to make the religious less intolerant, and less hostile towards members of outgroups, wouldn't it be better to work towards a society that is itself less intolerant and hostile towards members of outgrups?Yes, if your only goal is to make people more tolerant then that's what you should do. Meanwhile, some of us are trying to get people to abandon superstition—that's a different goal.
In other words, it seems to me that the problem with the Churchillian critique is that it mistakes a symptom for the cause; it fails to recognize that religions are, as they have always beens (and as any social institutions are and will alway be), tools of power and domination, and that the object of critique should be the powerful and the dominant.Wrong. It is you who is making the mistake. The "Churchillians" are opposed to superstition because it's not rational. We don't distinguish between superstitions that are associated with intolerance and those that aren't. Why is this so difficult to understand?
I think, for example, of the ways in which religion and society changed together in 18th century Europe, or the differences between the focus and attitudes of the religious in many European countries as opposed to the United States today. Religions that have survived for millennia have done so because they are incredibly adaptive, and it is the responsibility of anyone with a progressive world-view, recognizing that religion will not go away, to force religion to change by changing its environment and thereby forcing it to adapt. Calling religious people stupid, and treating religion as inherently evil, simply won't accomplish that.My goal is to achieve a society where there is no religion. I want people to stop believing in supernatural beings for which there is no evidence. I would also like to live in a society with a "more progressive world-view." Both goals are achievable. We don't want an atheistic intolerant society any more than we want a religious intolerant society.
19 comments :
Hear, hear. Great post.
He claims to be a proud Neville Chamberlain atheist.
He seems more of a Quisling atheist.
So naturally, in fact, that there is no reason to believe that religion is going away, much less that it is possible, through accusation and invective, to facilitate religion's demise.
In discussions of 'Natural Law', the distinction between is and ought is crucial.
To me the battle is between rationalism and superstition. The social critique is secondary.
And here is where we part company, to some extent. As a moral issue -- the sort of thing I'm willing to make a nuisance of myself over -- behaviour (ie. social effects) must take precedence over belief. Otherwise I'm back to the fundamentalist position of valuing belief over behaviour ("faith not works"). If it's wrong for them, it's wrong for our side, too.
Not, I hasten to add, that I'm unwilling to say forthrightly that I think the claims of all religions (that I'm aware of) to be unsupported and factually wrong; nor to promote the virtues of critical thinking. But if it comes to a choice, I have to give priority to influencing what people do over what they think (except as the latter drives the former, which I think is only partially).
Steve Watson says,
And here is where we part company, to some extent. As a moral issue -- the sort of thing I'm willing to make a nuisance of myself over -- behaviour (ie. social effects) must take precedence over belief.
No problem. You concentrate on fighting bad behavior and I'll concentrate on fighting superstition. If you promise not to excuse a little bit of bad behavior on the grounds that they at least believe in evolution, then I'll promise not to overlook a little bit of superstition in theistic evolutionists. Deal?
Larry, first of all, who knew you were a right wing blogger? Since they're the ones who insist that in order to be able to criticize anyone for doing wrong, you have to criticize everyone for doing wrong. Since I suspect most of the people reading SB are fully aware of the bigotry that comes with some brands of religion (and seriously, did you read the post? it was about changing religion's deleterious aspects by changing society).
On your second point (about the object of your critique), once again, apparently you didn't read the post. Part of the point was that religion, particularly the belief in supernatural agents, is natural and inevitable. Oh well. I've learned to expect this sort of thing from you.
Of course, I'm not a rationalist, so a battle between rationalism and supernaturalism is fundamentally uninteresting to me, except (again) from the perspective of progressive values, which neither serve.
At that point, your post turns entirely disingenuous. When I write a post advocating changing society's tolerance to change religion's tolerance, and you respond by asking me whether I think we shouldn't change society to make it more tolerant, how do you expect me to respond? By calling you a dumbass who can't read? 'Cause that's the only response it deserves.
And, since part of my point was that attempting to acheive a society with no religion is futile, wouldn't it be better to actually argue against that position in a post responding to that position?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure this will be the last time I read this blog, regardless of whether you respond to anything you say. It's clear to me, now, that you're a dishonest, intellectualy lazy son of a bitch who either deliberately, or as a result of intellectual deficiencies, can do little more than distort a position in order to respond to it. So, good day.
Oh, and Mustafa,"Quisling?" That's harsh. Try Nietzschean. I object to supernaturalism because I believe it devalues life. I recognize, however, that as a species, we're simply not ready to accept the death of God, and therefore the best way to change religion's hostility to life is to continually move society in a direction that is less hostile itself. Religion can then adapt, or be replaced.
"I recognize, however, that as a species, we're simply not ready to accept the death of God..."
Pretty damn condescending coming from someone who claims to have done just that. What, your fellow humans aren't yet good enough to share your exalted state of enlightenment?
One Dawkins is worth 50 of you.
When I write a post advocating changing society's tolerance to change religion's tolerance, and you respond by asking me whether I think we shouldn't change society to make it more tolerant, how do you expect me to respond? By calling you a dumbass who can't read? 'Cause that's the only response it deserves.
Apparently Chris doesn't understand that the point of Larry's rhetorical question to point out that the hurculean nature of the goal is not an excuse not to pursue it. That's the problem, and Chris should not throw stones when in a glass house (calling Larry a "dumbass who can't read").
And I'm sure glad that Chris holds his atheism on the principle that it "devalues life". One can only hope that he produces his research like that too, because it' a method guaranteed to produce results.
tyler, I got his point, but of course, making a rhetorical point by asking me if we should do exactly what I just said we do is stupid beyond belief. In particular when I've just argued (as the point of the post! did you read it? I don't think you did) that making such changes, while difficult, is easier than ridding the world of religion. I argued, in fact, that Larry's method is (getting rid of religion) impossible, not difficult, while actually changing society, and thereby religion, as history shows, is possible, even if it takes a significant amount of time.
I swear, it's as though his idiocy is contagious, 'cause I've seen some of you make very intelligent points elsewhere.
steve, hmmm... the answer, of course, is that I'm as human as the next guy. I struggle, on a daily basis, to create values in the absence of the grounding force of a supernatural agent. The difference between myself and the average theist is that I've committed myself to celebrating this life as an end, rather than as a means to another life above this one. Does that make me superior intellectually? Obviously not. Ethically? Often, no. But is my ethics more consistent with values of tolerance, equality, and respect? I think so, or I wouldn't have adopted it. Does that make it a better ethics? Obviously, I think so. If you think that makes me as bad, or worse, than Dawkins or his epigoni, that's fine with me. At least, in this case, I'm sticking to one empirical fact where Dawkins and his epigoni are not: belief in the supernatural is a natural and inevitable result of our makeup as is the completion of Kanizsa's triangle, and because of that, we are not, as a species, ready for the death of God (for the rejection of supernatural agents altogether).
The part about wanting “to achieve a society where there is no religion” is scary!
From a small portion from a blog entitled, “Defending the Faith Over a Syrah”
http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/defending-faith-over-syrah-my-first.html
The Bible does not teach the horrible practices that some have committed in its name. It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the details it produces evil because the individual people [Christians] are actually living in rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it [religion] can produce evil, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism (non-religious practices) actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God. For example: the Inquisitions, Crusades, Salem Witch Trials killed about anywhere from 40,000 to 80,000 persons combined (World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana), and the church is liable for the unjustified murder of about (taking the high number here) 300,000-women over about a 300 year period. A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religious criminals have committed); the Chinese regime of Mao Tse Tung, 60 million [+] dead (1945-1965), Stalin and Khrushchev, 66 million dead (USSR 1917-1959), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia 1975-1979) and Pol Pot, one-third of the populations dead, etc, etc. The difference here is that these non-God movements are merely living out their worldview, the struggle for power, survival of the fittest and all that, no evolutionary/naturalistic natural law is being violated in other words (as non-theists reduce everything to natural law -- materialism). However, and this is key, when people have misused the Christian religion for personal gain, they are in direct violation to what Christ taught, as well as Natural Law.
tyler, I got his point, but of course, making a rhetorical point by asking me if we should do exactly what I just said we do is stupid beyond belief.
But that's the point, it isn't. He looks at his goals in the same way you do yours. The ultimate goal of ridding society of religion is exactly like trying to rid society of homophobia, racism, xenophobia, etc. It is impossible to eliminate social evils completely, but that should nonetheless be the goal. If it's not a goal your share, that's your prerogative. But there is a good deal of hypocrisy in the "eliminating religion is (almost) impossible to achieve, therefore you shouldn't try" side of atheism.
The difference here is that these non-God movements are merely living out their worldview, the struggle for power, survival of the fittest and all that, no evolutionary/naturalistic natural law is being violated in other words (as non-theists reduce everything to natural law -- materialism).
Yeah, you better watch out. The EAC is coming for you in no time. We want your children and pets.
Tyler, I see nothing hypocritical about it, and I definitely don't see how anything Larry says addresses it. The point is this: there is a great deal of historical evidence that changing society changes religion. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that anything else does, or that there is any way of getting rid of religion through reason or science. In fact, the only consistent way of reducing identification with organized religion is to change society. So if Larry were arguing from an empirically-based position (which, it seems, would be the thing for him to do with all the rationalism and whatnot), he'd actually be agreeing with my position.
Now, I honestly don't think that Larry cares a whole hell of a lot about the intolerance of religion, as he pretty much makes clear here. He's interested in rationalism (read, positivism) triumphing over supernaturalism, because positivism ... er rationalism is right. It's the old Aristotelian knowledge is the good. It also, ultimately, leaves him without any moral ground whatsoever, because scientific facts don't provide value. You need something outside of science to do that. You know, metaphysics and stuff.
But I digress. The point is, Larry's done two things that he typically does: 1.) misrepresent what I've said, and 2.) even when correctly representing it, provided nothing resembling an argument against it. He's sorta like a creationist, in that way.
I haven't read Chris post (not likely since Chris, Ed and razib are so annoyingly chamberlain with a courtiers bent thrown in for good measure), but the post was well done on the quotes shown.
As in almost all such questions there are many unsupported assumptions used. For example, Chris assumes that religions are adaptive and won't go away.
I'm sure we would need studies here, but I think that the widespread disappearance of such once accepted social behaviors as slavery, pederasty and shamanic traditions shows that when societies change institutions disappear.
We have also marginalization, where once the astrologers of kings now mostly are rejected from intellectual circuits as astrology has been debunked.
"the intellectually righteous secularist"
It seems here and later that Chris have problems to understand that science establish knowledge in a rational manner. But once one gets that (without avoiding it with the courtier or simply strawmen on "intellectually righteous", "positivism", "rationalism", "moral" and "values") it is easy to understand that supernaturalism as antiscience is undesirable.
In fact, if one wants to reintroduce morals, it could be a scientists duty to battle superstition. Which at the most gets us back to the question if that is best done to fight superstition directly, or to change it indirectly by changing other parts of society. Which of course is another of those unsupported assumptions either way.
But I will say one thing for attacking superstition directly which is probably supportable, in absence of more data. The simpler a strategy is, the higher is the chance for success, all else equal.
So until anyone can support that we need to change the whole of society in order to get rid of pretty much one type of institution, I will take the direct route in the battle. Let's charge!
Larry,
Good thread. I admire that posters can call you a "son of a bitch" without getting banned, speaks to your openness and willingness to hear contrary views, as opposed to UD...
Two points. First, I disagree with Chris that religion will always be among us. The last millenium has shown a serious decline in the pervasiveness of Christianity in dominating day to day life in Europe. There are no more inquisitions, no more crusades, and one can be non-Christian without facing the death penalty. While you might argue its negative influence is still felt in many countries (USA, Iran, for example), my point is that we as a species are slowing moving away from wide-spread fundamentalism that was the norm 1,000 years ago. Makes me hopeful we could someday evolve beyond superstition.
Point two, I don't know if a society completely devoid of religion is such a noble goal, it sounds a bit totalitarian. A society without fundamentalism certainly, but what about the historical and cultural role of religion? I celebrate christmas and the spirit of generosity even though I don't really believe Santa delivers presents in his sled. Are you even against religion when people don't interpret it as literal truth?
Chris says,
Part of the point was that religion, particularly the belief in supernatural agents, is natural and inevitable. Oh well. I've learned to expect this sort of thing from you.
I read the part about religion being "natural and inevitable." What does that make atheists like you and me? Are we "unnatural?"
As for the "inevitable" part, all you have to do is look at some secular societies to refute that silly notion. Or do you think that America is so special that the experiences of other countries are irrelevant?
satoris asks,
...I don't know if a society completely devoid of religion is such a noble goal, it sounds a bit totalitarian. A society without fundamentalism certainly, but what about the historical and cultural role of religion? I celebrate christmas and the spirit of generosity even though I don't really believe Santa delivers presents in his sled. Are you even against religion when people don't interpret it as literal truth?
I also celebrate Christmas ... and Halloween ... and Canada Day ... and Darwin's birthday. You don't have to be religious to have culture and tradition.
The fact that some of our traditions come from pagan religions that no longer exist doesn't stop us from celebrating them and having fun. In the future Christianity may no longer exist but we can still decorate a tree at Christmas and collect painted eggs at Easter. (Neither Christmas trees nor Easter eggs come from the Bible.)
"belief in the supernatural is a natural and inevitable result of our makeup as is the completion of Kanizsa's triangle, and because of that, we are not, as a species, ready for the death of God (for the rejection of supernatural agents altogether)."
What is the evidence for that assumption?
Btw, Pharyngula mentions Robert Sapolsky, who has intriguing ideas. ( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/sapolsky_on_belief_and_biology.php )
He remarks that one explanation for both schizophrenic frequencies and religions is that the former is the founders of the later. "What this shamanistic theory says is, it's not schizophrenia that's evolved, it's schizotypal shamanism that's evolved. In order to have a couple of shamans on hand in your group, you're willing to put up with the occasional third cousin who's schizophrenic. That's the argument; and it's a very convincing one." ( http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2003/april/index.php?ft=sapolsky )
He also notes on the daily ritualism in large scale religions, that it is remarkably like ritualism in OCD.
I'm not sure how much his theories are non-contradictory or testable. But even if they are the usual "just so stories" of evolutionary psychology, they stand against Chris's similar "just so stories".
Post a Comment