I think this is a positive development, but I also think there will be a backlash as more of this goes on. Robert King has an article in the Indy Star entitled “Religious skeptics believe their voices will be heard.”
The article notes the bus-ad campaign about how it’s possible to be good without God; a northern Indianapolis billboard asking people to “imagine no religion;” and a local conference examining the Bible and Quran with an eye toward showing that they’re works of fiction in many cases.
I don’t think a lot of talk is going to convince anyone to abandon their religion. Faith is emotional, not rational. Contrary evidence can always be swept away with miracles. But that’s not really the point – or shouldn’t be in my opinion. Rather, I think there are a lot of people who don’t act on faith, who don’t really believe. But they have been largely voiceless. There is a taboo in our society against admitting you don’t really believe Jesus was an immortal God-Man or that Mary conceived a child without having sex or some of the other magical events in the Bible. Somehow doing so has been tantamount to proclaiming yourself devious, immoral, and perverse.
The pernicious effect of tying morality to religion in the public mind has been to cede perception of having the moral high ground to charlatans like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson, giving people like them more influence over public policy than their ideas really merit on their own. Hopefully the more the non-religious feel comfortable being open about their opinions on issues of faith, the less morality will be conflated with religion. And, if that happens, perhaps those making public policy proposals based on morality will have to show that their proposals are actually moral instead of simply pretending to know the mind of Jesus and telling everyone else to fall in line or go to hell.
What will hurt the non-religious in this respect, however, is a sneering contempt for religion. Many people truly believe in any number of different gods. And history is littered with extraordinary efforts made to honor even more, mostly forgotten gods. People will not suddenly abandon their beliefs because some know-it-all builds a strong, rational case against religion. We can’t really judge people on their beliefs but only on their actions. If a belief in Jesus prompts a person to help the poor and become pillars of the community, then we should admire them whatever their motivation. And if a belief in Jesus prompts a person to be hateful to people who don’t share their beliefs, we should reject them — the same as if the same acts were committed by someone who does not believe in any supernatural beings.
There seems to be a concerted effort by fundamentalist Christians to downplay any other views if they differ from theirs. This is what is causing the rift between non-believers and the fundies. They are reluctant to admit that anyone would dare to have another opinion. The religions have dominated the thinking of the world for far to long. Their arguments don’t hold water in so many ways. Intelligent design, virgin birth, hell, heaven and so many other mythical stories from the bible just don’t cut it in today’s culture.
The fact that religion and politics is a dangerous mix is just one of the reasons why there is this uprising of reason is happening. If you think about it, it is a necessary progression of common sense. I’m sure no one wants to have a psychotic religious person capable of starting a nuclear WW3.
Organizing just makes them an easier target for blame for everything. They are sign of the end times and are at fault for obama, liberals, bad schools and everything else.
We have learned not to speak out over millenia as we are the ones put to death first, all in the name of religion. And so it still goes. The only joy in all this religious crap I see is that this imagined god created religion so that he could sit back and laugh at all the falwells, bushes, pences, bosmas and gop family values types as they perform their acts of divining his will.
I think you might be bordering on a strawman argument there in the last paragraph. There are some well-known atheists who could be described as sneering and contemptuous, but I don’t find that to be a common attitude amongst non-believers that I’ve met. There is also a great range amongst non-believers about what their role interacting with religious believers should be. For some it’s it’s a live-and-let-live mentality, with activism only in the case of being free of religion imposed on their own lives. For others, it’s a desire to rescue scientific endeavors from the religious restrictions impeding scientific progress. And for some it’s a belief that religion holds us back as a people in many areas and should be argued against both in the political and social arena. There’s a great range there, and recognizing and respecting the differing goals of different atheists is something to be included here.
I guess I should have read that first line more closely – you did recognize that not all non-believers express sneering and contempt, and were saying that behavior could only work against them in attempts to persuade. I apologize for mis-reading that.
“What will hurt the non-religious in this respect, however, is a sneering contempt for religion.”
When I read Richard Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion, I was stunned by the hate-laced bigotry his displayed for religious people. Sam Harris offers nothing more.
On the other hand, Michael Shermer (skepticblog.com), maintains a sensible approach of tolerance. Sadly, he believes in the atheist Garden of Eden myth in which America was founded by secularists (or, in their state of innocence, Deists).
Needed is an affinity of atheists who are not anti-theists. Including you, I can think of two.
It just depends on whether religion is mostly seen as a means to better pave ones own road through life,or if it is mostly seen as a wall to build across other people’s roads through life. Religion goes both ways and is greatly swayed by the culture of the church where the catechism is taught. Believers can be swayed either way,and that’s how religion can be malicious or beneficial.
Historically the KKK and the Civil Rights movement both got inspiration from the churches,and both sides were often church-goers.
Lou, what about the people whose faith leads them to pave other people’s road through life.
The church I attend and my personal faith lead me to do everything I can to lift up the downtrodden, the forgotten, the poor, the hurting and anyone in need. Sharing my beliefs is not required, just being in a position of need is enough.
Paddy,
You make a very good point I omitted, and gladly you took the time to point out that churches do significant community work.There are many people motivated to help others through faith and their chrurch..sometimes helping others is what nurtures their faith,and that’s why they go I’m delighted that Obama is going to continue the faith-based initiatives that President Bush started,but I haveny heard much after his initial public promise.Obama’s church in Chicago under Rev Wright did significant good works in the community.Yet we never heard much about that side of Obama’s church.
The caveat for Obama is that not all churches are Protestant Evangelical-oriented and there are places of worships not called ‘churches’ yet equally worthy of public money.
I’m not sure how public money is allocated toc faith-based oranizations.or what kind of plan they have to submit for use of public money,but that’s something that must be open to public scrutiny.
(To some I come across as a leftwing-commie type,but I’m one who also goes to mass and personally benefits).