The Goal of Atheism and the Benefits of Religion
I was asked this morning about our vision for the future. What do we hope to accomplish by advocating atheism? Do we want to get rid of religion entirely? Would the world be a better place without it? Here is my off the cuff answer...
A philosopher with a Ph.D. emailed me this question:
We're tired of being maligned and considered to be less trustworthy than prostitutes and child molesters, for start.
We're tired of scientific ignorance, and the destruction and killing in the name of God, too.
There are plenty of negative reasons for asserting ourselves and our arguments, and that alone is justification for our arguments.
But we also have a positive goal. We believe we're right. Being correct is a worthy goal, even if we think that delusional beliefs lead to terrible puplic policies and agendas.
Our vision for the future? It would depend on the particular skeptic I suppose. I mainly think about MY particular future. So I want less antagonism toward me as an atheist. Since I don't believe religion will ever pass from the scene, given what Paul Kurtz calls The Transcendental Temptation, if all we can do is to lessen the effects of religious beliefs then that's a worthy goal, probably the only goal possible.
Is religion beneficial? It is beneficial for delusional people in the same way that a prozac drug is beneficial for depressed people. As long as there are depressed people we'll need prozac, a new kind of "opium for the masses." But a healthier person doesn't need prozac or religion. I want to make people healthier, you see. When that time comes, if it does at all, we won't need religion.
A philosopher with a Ph.D. emailed me this question:
What is the goal and purpose of these atheists? What purpose do they want to accomplish? What kind of existential purpose are atheists offering people who would replace their purpose-filled faith with atheism? I'm curious what you think. I'm not being impish.Where do I start? ;-)
We're tired of being maligned and considered to be less trustworthy than prostitutes and child molesters, for start.
We're tired of scientific ignorance, and the destruction and killing in the name of God, too.
There are plenty of negative reasons for asserting ourselves and our arguments, and that alone is justification for our arguments.
But we also have a positive goal. We believe we're right. Being correct is a worthy goal, even if we think that delusional beliefs lead to terrible puplic policies and agendas.
Our vision for the future? It would depend on the particular skeptic I suppose. I mainly think about MY particular future. So I want less antagonism toward me as an atheist. Since I don't believe religion will ever pass from the scene, given what Paul Kurtz calls The Transcendental Temptation, if all we can do is to lessen the effects of religious beliefs then that's a worthy goal, probably the only goal possible.
Is religion beneficial? It is beneficial for delusional people in the same way that a prozac drug is beneficial for depressed people. As long as there are depressed people we'll need prozac, a new kind of "opium for the masses." But a healthier person doesn't need prozac or religion. I want to make people healthier, you see. When that time comes, if it does at all, we won't need religion.
9 comments:
I don't agree that religion is really all that beneficial for anyone. The primary benefits, such as working as a social outlet, doing charitable works, etc., are available without the delusional trappings of religion. In fact, I suspect that religion actually interferes with those benefits. How much more charitable work could be done if people spent less time and money building and going to churches, and more on actually helping those in need?
Religion isn't much like prozac, either. Yes, anti-depressants are over-prescribed, but there are some people (myself included) who have brain-chemistry issues that prozac and other anti-depressants actually provide a significant benefit for. Religion is more like a placebo-it makes you think you feel better, but the benefits are not genuine. That can actually be dangerous, because you're avoiding reality and the true cause of your ills is not being addressed.
...But we also have a positive goal. We believe we're right. Being correct is a worthy goal, even if we think that delusional beliefs lead to terrible puplic policies and agendas...
This makes me feel that your point of view is no different than many people you want to discredit. It is your way or the highway. The only difference is that instead of leading people to God, you want to discredit His existance. How does that make you any different? Do you feel that it makes you a better person than someone professing the need for Christianity?
People have the ability to find out for themselves what they want to believe, one way or the other...Why do some people feel they either need to pound God into someone, or vice versa, pound God out of you...In my book you are cut from the same cloth...
Paint us a picture of what the world would be like without the Jew or the Christian or the peaceful Muslim of the Rumi sort.
Which group of people, in history or today, would you pick to build a world from? Who's values are going to be instituted?
What is the vision of community based upon atheism? If your goal is to multiply youselves, there will be an ultimate "togetherness" with government and social structure involved and you won't be able to say it's up to the individual atheist to decide what their goal is. Per nature of the beast a leader is always asked for at some point.
If atheists were the majority of our nation and held the major vote, what would it look like?
I'm glad someone asked this question because I've been wondering for a while too.
jennifer, I would like for the whole world to embrace democratic capitalism, the kind we have in America, with a constitution like it and the separation of powers. I want a firm wall between church and state, and that means believers would have no fear of atheists since the state could not and should not, enforce anti-religious beliefs either, even if we were a majority of atheists. No religious nor non-religious litmus test for running for office and no state supported religion or non-religion.
Does that assauge your fears?
Mr. Loftus quotes his philosophical correspondent as asking: "What kind of existential purpose are atheists offering people who would replace their purpose-filled faith with atheism?"
This question makes two assumptions:
1. A god has to create the universe with a "purpose" for human convenience; when logically a god doesn't have to do anything of the sort.
2. If a god created human life with a "purpose," that purpose has to make sense to humans and meet with their approval. What if this god's conjectured "purpose" for your existence makes no sense or sounds like something you don't want? For example, what if a god requires you to go to hell forever? Would that decision by a god regarding your existence give it a "purpose"?
Indeed, christians have trouble explaining why so many people would, in their view, renounce "purpose" by leaving their faith, when in fact these apostates just didn't find the christian conjecture of human "purpose" intelligible, appealing or defensible, and they have chosen to develop or explore other views of the matter.
@Jennifer
You cannot have a society based on atheism (that would be a society based on nothing). "We" are not a singular being and unlike organized religion, have nothing to really bind us together, except for a few who fight against encroachment on non-religious people's rights. Since we are not an even remotely unified or linked group of people, it is pointless to ask which values or ethics any one person might subscribe to. The very nature of being a "free-thinker" precludes such a unified decision as a group (note the largely ineffectual atheist PAC). Such a action would turn the former individuals into something not too terribly dissimilar from religion.
Your question is unanswerable by definition. There is simply no meaningful way to answer that. Western European powers were mostly Democratic socialist countries post-WW2 and have become more secular with time, but their political system has not changed radically (or even really much at all) with the secularization of their societies. I don't really think our political demographics would change either.
Only unhealthy people need religion, you say?
Reminds me of the "mental treatments" foisted on believers by the old Soviet leadership, officially atheistic by the way, and exhuberant about targeting beleives BECAUSE of atheistic hatred.
I know. I have met some of the survivors, although many did not survive.
Of course you will say that won't happen if atheist get control
Well, I don't say you are lying.
I simply "lack belief" in your claim.
Only unhealthy people need religion, you say?
Reminds me of the "mental treatments" foisted on believers by the old Soviet leadership, officially atheistic by the way, and exhuberant about targeting beleives BECAUSE of atheistic hatred.
I know. I have met some of the survivors, although many did not survive.
Of course you will say that won't happen if atheist get control
Well, I don't say you are lying.
I simply "lack belief" in your claim.
adamh,
The Soviet Union was a totalitarian communist dictatorship. The U.S. is a democratic capitalist society. Were atheists to hold the largest constituency, they would not "get control". They would simply be in the majority of voters, just like Christians are now.
Post a Comment