How does this balance against Eliezer’s professed belief that most people don’t believe in religion, but believe in belief in religion? (Which, given that religious people live longer, tend to be happier, etc, is in fact a perfectly rational belief. You don’t win by conforming to what somebody says rationalism should be, you win by winning.)
I mean, strictly speaking, I’m not sure that a full evaluation supports antitheistic beliefs—that is, the belief that religion is a qualitative negative. Atheism hasn’t caught up to religion in terms of social support groups, structured social activities, and inclusiveness. (Not all religions are inclusive, mind, but they tend to be -more- inclusive than the atheist groups I’ve encountered. Most people belong to religions that will take anybody, even if they disapprove of them.)
Given the many advantages religion does confer, and given that atheism has done little to build parallel structures, the hostility towards religion makes no sense. No matter how ugly your house, you don’t knock it down until you’re at the very least prepared to replace it.
The post would have been considerably better without the antitheism. Making the world more rational is a useful goal in and of itself, it really shouldn’t be justified in terms of destroying something which is in fact providing useful functions to most of society.
Atheism hasn’t caught up to religion in terms of [..] inclusiveness. [..] Most people belong to religions that will take anybody, even if they disapprove of them.
I agree that most of the religious groups I know of won’t actually kick an atheist out of their gatherings, as long as the atheist in question is respectful of the group’s practice (e.g., doesn’t disrupt services to discuss the rational justification for religious belief).
On the other hand, most of the atheist groups I know of won’t actually kick a theist out of their gatherings, as long as the theist in question is respectful of the group’s practice (e.g., doesn’t disrupt discussion to proselytize their religious tradition).
So I’m not sure about your claim wrt inclusiveness. Can you clarify what you mean by that, and why you believe it?
the hostility towards religion makes no sense. No matter how ugly your house, you don’t knock it down until you’re at the very least prepared to replace it.
Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it isn’t.
If a powerful existing group X is hostile to a less powerful emerging group Y, it’s often not viable for Y to leave X unmolested while it “builds its own house.” Sometimes that just allows X to keeps intervening in ways that significantly reduce the chance of the house being built.
For one example of non-inclusiveness, politics. Most the atheist groups I’ve encountered deliberately exclude uncloseted conservatives. Open hostility towards conservatives is pretty common, as well. Back in the Bush era, when libertarians were treated by the left as honorary liberals, this wasn’t quite as big a deal for me personally. Since Obama is in office, we’ve been lumped in with the conservatives again.
For a specific example not involving politics, the last atheist—in that case humanist—meeting I attended featured a supposed neurologist who came up to the podium and started claiming that religion was a mental disorder and started describing the similarities of the disorder to dyslexia (getting the details of dyslexia grossly wrong, to boot). My dyslexic sister, who I had narrowly convinced to attend the meeting with me, was -not- amused.
(Every organization wants to be a cult, and all that; the extreme people drive off the moderates. Religion is actually -really good- at keeping its less extreme members interested. Contrary to all expectation, my experience is that religious organizations tend to be the -least- cultlike ideological organizations.)
Religion, for all its own extremists, hasn’t actually made any effort at going around and knocking down atheist organizations. That’s a rather flimsy rationalization for why atheists have been completely incapable of replicating the good aspects of religion—we can’t build our own stuff until we’ve knocked down things that aren’t actually standing in our way?
Consider all the secular activities churches support and engage in. Hell, a church near me revised its policies a few years back—it added a second day of religion-free services. No, I have no idea how that works, and have never attended one. But as an atheist I have to acknowledge that I’ve taken advantage of a lot of the organizations, buildings, and services churches make possible. Until and unless there are secular alternatives to at least most of those offerings—supported on the same voluntary basis that churches exist upon today—atheism has absolutely no business even -thinking- about tearing religious institutions down.
Consider all the secular activities churches support and engage in. Hell, a church near me revised its policies a few years back—it added a second day of religion-free services. No, I have no idea how that works, and have never attended one. But as an atheist I have to acknowledge that I’ve taken advantage of a lot of the organizations, buildings, and services churches make possible. Until and unless there are secular alternatives to at least most of those offerings—supported on the same voluntary basis that churches exist upon today—atheism has absolutely no business even -thinking- about tearing religious institutions down.
If I understand correctly what kind of services you’re talking about, many social centres do a decent job, at least in Europe.
How does this balance against Eliezer’s professed belief that most people don’t believe in religion, but believe in belief in religion? (Which, given that religious people live longer, tend to be happier, etc, is in fact a perfectly rational belief. You don’t win by conforming to what somebody says rationalism should be, you win by winning.)
I mean, strictly speaking, I’m not sure that a full evaluation supports antitheistic beliefs—that is, the belief that religion is a qualitative negative. Atheism hasn’t caught up to religion in terms of social support groups, structured social activities, and inclusiveness. (Not all religions are inclusive, mind, but they tend to be -more- inclusive than the atheist groups I’ve encountered. Most people belong to religions that will take anybody, even if they disapprove of them.)
Given the many advantages religion does confer, and given that atheism has done little to build parallel structures, the hostility towards religion makes no sense. No matter how ugly your house, you don’t knock it down until you’re at the very least prepared to replace it.
The post would have been considerably better without the antitheism. Making the world more rational is a useful goal in and of itself, it really shouldn’t be justified in terms of destroying something which is in fact providing useful functions to most of society.
I agree that most of the religious groups I know of won’t actually kick an atheist out of their gatherings, as long as the atheist in question is respectful of the group’s practice (e.g., doesn’t disrupt services to discuss the rational justification for religious belief).
On the other hand, most of the atheist groups I know of won’t actually kick a theist out of their gatherings, as long as the theist in question is respectful of the group’s practice (e.g., doesn’t disrupt discussion to proselytize their religious tradition).
So I’m not sure about your claim wrt inclusiveness. Can you clarify what you mean by that, and why you believe it?
Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it isn’t.
If a powerful existing group X is hostile to a less powerful emerging group Y, it’s often not viable for Y to leave X unmolested while it “builds its own house.” Sometimes that just allows X to keeps intervening in ways that significantly reduce the chance of the house being built.
For one example of non-inclusiveness, politics. Most the atheist groups I’ve encountered deliberately exclude uncloseted conservatives. Open hostility towards conservatives is pretty common, as well. Back in the Bush era, when libertarians were treated by the left as honorary liberals, this wasn’t quite as big a deal for me personally. Since Obama is in office, we’ve been lumped in with the conservatives again.
For a specific example not involving politics, the last atheist—in that case humanist—meeting I attended featured a supposed neurologist who came up to the podium and started claiming that religion was a mental disorder and started describing the similarities of the disorder to dyslexia (getting the details of dyslexia grossly wrong, to boot). My dyslexic sister, who I had narrowly convinced to attend the meeting with me, was -not- amused.
(Every organization wants to be a cult, and all that; the extreme people drive off the moderates. Religion is actually -really good- at keeping its less extreme members interested. Contrary to all expectation, my experience is that religious organizations tend to be the -least- cultlike ideological organizations.)
Religion, for all its own extremists, hasn’t actually made any effort at going around and knocking down atheist organizations. That’s a rather flimsy rationalization for why atheists have been completely incapable of replicating the good aspects of religion—we can’t build our own stuff until we’ve knocked down things that aren’t actually standing in our way?
Consider all the secular activities churches support and engage in. Hell, a church near me revised its policies a few years back—it added a second day of religion-free services. No, I have no idea how that works, and have never attended one. But as an atheist I have to acknowledge that I’ve taken advantage of a lot of the organizations, buildings, and services churches make possible. Until and unless there are secular alternatives to at least most of those offerings—supported on the same voluntary basis that churches exist upon today—atheism has absolutely no business even -thinking- about tearing religious institutions down.
If I understand correctly what kind of services you’re talking about, many social centres do a decent job, at least in Europe.
OK, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.