Is anyone else tired of Evangelical Atheism?

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi

This is what I don't get.

Dawkins believes that religion does harm because it teaches people to ignore the rules of logic and science; but religion itself is a product of a previous ignoring of the rules of logic and science. (This of course also holds where the ignoring was inevitable simply because those rules weren't understood by certain peoples yet). So why blame the result of the very thing you mean to attack, rather than the thing itself?

It seems to me that in the case of religion, what we (often) have are beliefs which disregard certain rules which help align our beliefs with the reality they are supposed to represent (call those sorts of beliefs "D beliefs"). But "religious" D beliefs comprise but one of many species of D beliefs; and do not appear more intrinsically harmful than other species. So why not focus on D beliefs themselves? Like I said, it is kind of like writing a book focused on Snickers bars, rather than on sugary, fatty foods in general.

Take a couple of examples. There are millions of people right now around the Western world - in which access to the highest quality health care is almost always a given - who nevertheless are perfectly besotted with primitive and false medical ideas. If they wake up suffering a sharp pain in their abdomen, they are far more likely to visit their preferred Chinese witch doctor, who will examine them for an "imbalance of energy flows", and gobble up whatever unregulated, bottled swill he passes on to them, rather than visit a walk-in clinic and be examined for, say, an infection or appendix problem or something like that, and receive standard (and effective) treatment. THAT kind of "D belief" leads people to make the worst decisions possible for their health, and the health of those they have guardianship over. I've known several parents who, when their kids get terrible fevers, disregard the M.D. and instead take them down to some CHIROPRACTOR for a spinal adjustment. That is just as ignorant as anything you'd find in the Gospel Doctrine class of the Vernal 482nd ward, AND - this the crucial thing - that "D belief" is MORE DANGEROUS than anything you'd hear in that class, or most religious classes.

What of political "D beliefs"? Notwithstanding 80 years of failed Marxism wherever it has been tried, there are still millions of people on this planet who remain "true Marxist believers"; and if recent history tells us anything, it tells us that devotion to this particular kind of "D belief" can induce people to commit unspeakable, genocidal horrors.

Focusing on the harm done by religion, after 80 years of the most horrific genocidal slaughter in world history, almost none of which was specifically religious, seems to betray some sort of irrationalism. It really does. Humanitarian concern to my mind would force an assault against the most presently harmful D beliefs. Certainly, Islamolunacy right now would qualify as one of those - but "religion in general"? I don't think so.

Effective intellectual humanitarianism requires prioritization of D beliefs according to their present threat levels, just like effective medical treatment requires prioritization of health problems according to the same criterion, just like effective military defense requires similar prioritization, etc. Attacking "religion in general", then, seems misguided. Hell - Hitchens is FOR the military crackdown on Islamofascism; yet which country is at the forefront of that crackdown? None other than the most religious Western nation, the USA. While American soldiers, many of them religious and supported by tens of millions of religious Americans, are doing just what Hitchens would like (to a large degree fueled by senses of absolute good and evil which they feel allows them to identify violent, radical Islam as evil), secular Europeans seem too busy smoking hashish, watching hardcore pornography, and watching Michael Moore movies, to even care.

Hitchens has acknowledged that there was a religious motivation to abolitionist efforts; he must acknowledge that the same motivation in many cases fuels efforts against radical Islam; so why should he persist in announcing that "religion poisons EVERYTHING"? And why should Dawkins, and Harris, and Dennett, all continue to label religion in general as a scourge?

The truth is that some D beliefs - whether political, religious, medical, or whatever - are fairly benign (and so hardly worth paying attention to when there are other more threatening things we face), others a bit worse, and some will turn certain folks into Dostoevsky's "Devils".

So, I'd appreciate more discrimination from The Four Horseman. Such crude screeds just don't do it for me anymore...

Just my two cents,

Tal

[_wenglund]

Wade,

You are so reliably clueless.

The topic is whether or not people are sick of evangelical atheists. How can one be sick of them when they are such a minority, so outnumbered by evangelical believers of hundreds of different stripes? Atheists could not even begin to "even the score".

I understood that. So, where am I clueless?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_guy sajer]

Okay Canucklehead, I hear your point.

In response to others, I never thought of this as "evening" any scores; I just think it doesn't make much sense to finger religion, if the real problem is uncritical/dogmatic thinking, because uncritical/dogmatic thinking doesn't necessarily require any religious cover at all; and in its non-religious form, was the cause of the deaths of many millions of people literally within only the past 80 years. So why focus on religion? It's like writing a book fingering Snickers bars, when what you really mean is malnutritious food in general.

What am I missing?

Why not focus on religion? Why is it necessary for those writing on the subject to tackle meta explanations? Religion is clearly a part of dogmatic thinking, so it is an obvious and important topic. Other writers are, I am sure, tackling other dimensions of the problem.

To use your analogy, why couldn't someone write about Snickers Bars, if that were in fact an issue? Why would it be necessary for anyone writing on malnutritious food to tackle the entire subject in one tome? One might also write about snack chips, or soda pop, or any other sub-issue falling under the broader issue.

To carry it further, if infidelity is but one manifestation of marital problems, should one only write meta-studies of marital problems, or is it appropriate to write about infidelity as a topic in and of itself, or as part of a larger problem?

What we appear to have here is a sampling problem. Sure, there are a few books out on the dangers of dogmatic religion these days, but there are also, I presume, a number of other books out there talking about other dimensions of the overall problem.

I don't see the problem.

[_The Dude]

I read "The God Delusion" (Richard Dawkins) and enjoyed it very much. I didn't think it was a screed or polemical at all, and there were actually a lot of good insights there, in my opinion. I think he made excellent efforts to present the atheist world-view as a positive and appealing alternative to God.

I read "Letter to a Christian Nation" (Sam Harris) and thought it lacked a lot of Dawkins' character and insight. Okay, it was too short to include anything new and interesting.

I'm now reading "God is Not Great" (Christopher Hitchens) and it's okay. Very polemical, as someone said earlier. If it doesn't qualify as evangelical atheism, it's clear that someone who had the book before me is a believer in evangelical atheism. I checked it out from the public library after a wait of ~2 months, because it is so popular. There are two tracts stuck into the jacket: "What They Said About Religion", a bunch of quotes from Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc. And then "Is America a Christian Nation", which is meant to counter the prevalent myths that our legal system is based on the 10 commandments, that it was founded by religious outcasts (Puritans), etc.

Am I tired of evangelical atheism? Not yet -- I just started Hitchens' book. I'm tired of evangelical evangelicals, who have too much influence in this country (maybe not in Canada, eh Tal?), and they deserve this backlash at the very least.

[_Loquacious Lurker]

Well, have I got some stats for you.

"Importance of religion in national life" is ranked as low or very low in priority in the 14 most peaceful nations. The Intelligence Unit of The Economist Magazine, a well-respected British publication, has ranked 121 countries for the Global Peace Index Rankings, which are based on a no. of criteria. In the 14 most peaceful nations, the "Importance of religion in national life" ranked as 1 (very unimportant, essentially) or 2 (unimportant).

Interestingly, in 29 of the 33 least peaceful countries (according to the GPIR), "Importance of religion in national life" was 3, 4, or 5 (moderately important, important, or very important, respectively).

To check out the GPIR ranking of your country, visit http://www.visionofhumanity.com/rankings/ ."

I think correlation does equal causation in this instance. Religion may not "poison everything" on the micro scale, but what about on the macro?

[_Sethbag]

I thought that "evening the score" went out in junior high, along with the mistaken notion that tearing others down (particularly their beliefs) will somehow build oneself up. But, apparently some of our godless friends, like some religionists, didn't get the memo. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can understand the reason why such a motive would be sought in relation to proselyting, however, in light of D&C 4, recited ad nauseum by missionaries in the MTC:
"4 For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;"

So, there is a selfish motive to build oneself up in the eyes of God by proselyting Mormonism to others. No such scripture exists in atheistville though. I'm not trying to curry favor with some non-existent God by proclaiming his non-existence to all and sundry. It's really about keep misguided religionists off our backs, and trying to extend a hand to help them out of their misguided belief system. If it's about building anyone up, it's about building up the religionists by helping them see more clearly.

[_Sethbag]

And, yet, there are some, perhaps many, very smart people who believe exactly that. Some even smarter than you. That is odd isn't it?

And there are some human beings who are the absolute peak of physical health who contract a virus and die young. Isn't that odd too? Religious ideas (and probably some other kinds of ideas, too, but certainly the religious ones) are viruses of the mind. They infect people and undermine that person's defense against bad thought, until a person, however smart they might otherwise be, simply cannot think straight about the religion.

Your equation of a material virus with religous thought, while colorful and illustrative to some degree, is not compatable. Smart and dumb people alike are free to reject any religous thought at any time, based on whatever impetus they wish. Your pious implication that you are somehow unencumbered by the myriad biases available is self-delusion - the very characteristic you castigate. Some choose differently, and their reasons are every bit as valid as yours, they might even claim more valid. As my Nuclear Physicist friend commented to me on why he believes, "It's reasonable." [emphasis added]

You've totally missed the point. It's like saying that healthy people are free to choose not to be infected by a virus anymore.

Just as the HIV virus (redundant, I know, deal with it) undermines the very natural defenses which the body normally uses to stop viral infections, a mental virus like religion works by selectively shutting down the mind's ability to think objectively. If this is true, then what you said is not true, that is, smart and dumb people alike aren't really free to reject any religious thought at any time, if the religious practice has involved things which have the affect of ingraining certain thought patterns into the person's mind, and of making that person avoid thinking in certain ways.

It doesn't take a study of diehard TBMs to demonstrate this. You can just look at any diehard Jehovah's Witness (and probably many other religions), and you can find the very same mental inability to think objectively and clearly about their religious beliefs. To someone born into the JWs, who grows up with it and embraces it and accepts it lock, stock, and barrel (I've had conversations with a good handful of such folk), it becomes very, very difficult, if not impossible, for them to see reality and the world in any way but with the assumption that JWism is totally correct and God's true religion and way of life. The JWs, to a diehard JW, are obviously true. The JWs not being true is an impossibility to them, and they literally cannot even conceive of JWism not being true.

And the same thing can be said of diehard TBMs. Some TBMs eventually break through and see what's been going on, but pretty much universally I've seen it described as a very painful, difficult process, and it's been that way for myself. Others don't ever make it. Tal Bachman, who started this whole thread, has said that his experience of breaking the mental bonds was very painful. But others, for whatever reason, once infected deeply enough with the mind virus, cannot ever shake it, and never do. I think my mom is that way, and some of my in-laws. No amount of explaining to them the reasons why it's clear that the church isn't true can ever overcome their belief that any such evidence is just a lie, mistaken, or miscontrued, and their brushing it aside or ignoring it. It's literally impossible, in their mindset, that what you're saying is in fact true, and so they cannot accept it. It must be rejected, or ignored, or marginalized. It's the mind virus at work.

[_Some Schmo]

Mere semantics, Runtu.

Actually, religion does have its uses... We need a place for the special ed kids to go, right? Where would Wade go on Sundays to color and stuff?

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

Oh! Schmo! That hurts me! Seriously. :(

Please don't be too negatively affected by Schmo. I am guessing that when he left the Church he, like Mercury and PP, lost his sense of propriety and social graces (assuming he ever had them to begin with), having traded them in for bigotry, and is now floundering in an unwittingly desparate and failed attempts to be funny. He really doesn't know any better. But, give him time, and some warranted feedback (like what you just did), and maybe he will at some point in the future actually get it and ironically see a need to grow up.

I say this not so much for your sake (since I believe you already understand this), but for his. I value your healthy sensitivity, your sense of fairness, and human kindness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

LMAO

Why is there always the distinctive smell of BS around your posts, Wade?

Goddamn, you make me laugh.

[_Some Schmo]

Mere semantics, Runtu.

Actually, religion does have its uses... We need a place for the special ed kids to go, right? Where would Wade go on Sundays to color and stuff?

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

Oh! Schmo! That hurts me! Seriously.

:(

Now why would that hurt you?

[_wenglund]

I thought that "evening the score" went out in junior high, along with the mistaken notion that tearing others down (particularly their beliefs) will somehow build oneself up. But, apparently some of our godless friends, like some religionists, didn't get the memo. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can understand the reason why such a motive would be sought in relation to proselyting, however, in light of D&C 4, recited ad nauseum by missionaries in the MTC: "4 For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;"

So, there is a selfish motive to build oneself up in the eyes of God by proselyting Mormonism to others. No such scripture exists in atheistville though. I'm not trying to curry favor with some non-existent God by proclaiming his non-existence to all and sundry. It's really about keep misguided religionists off our backs, and trying to extend a hand to help them out of their misguided belief system. If it's about building anyone up, it's about building up the religionists by helping them see more clearly.

I would think that were godlessness obviously a more benefitial world view, then extolling its virtues (via positive evangelizing), rather than ripping on religion, would be the most effective way of getting religions supposedly off your back and help build them up and see more clearly?

In other words, if the godless wish to diminish the influence of their religionist competitors and increase their own market share in the marketplace of ideas, they may best do so by clearly demonstrate (by persuasively positive reasoning and more so by the fruits of the quality of their lives) the supposed increased value and superiority of their product--this assumes, of course, that the product of godlessness may evidently have increased value and is superior to religion. Resorting to smearing the religionist merely suggests that their (your) godless product can't compete on its own merits, and so it takes tearing others down so as to better compete with their (your) evidently inferior product. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-