While I’m shirking my blogging responsibilities by linking to series of posts elsewhere, there’s an interesting discussion about hostility to atheists at the Volokh Conspiracy: see here, here, here, and here. You’d be unsurprised (I suspect) to learn that Americans find atheists to be one of the most untrustworthy brands of people around. Just to get an idea, here are the answers from a 2005 poll that asked whether “your overall opinion of [the group] is very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?”
|
Group |
Very favorable (%) |
Mostly favorable |
Mostly unfavorable |
Very unfavorable |
|
“Catholics” |
24 |
49 |
10 |
4 |
|
“Jews” |
23 |
54 |
5 |
2 |
|
“Evangelical Christians” |
17 |
40 |
14 |
5 |
|
“Muslim Americans” |
9 |
46 |
16 |
9 |
|
“Atheists, that is, people who don’t believe in God” |
7 |
28 |
22 |
28 |
Well, I suppose it’s understandable, since atheists are constantly killing innocent members of other sects in the name of their belief system. Oh wait, no they’re not. Must be the War On Xmas that is hurting our ratings.
Since the subject is atheism and religion I thought readers of this post would be interested in two wonderful recent essays on C. S. Lewis and the Narnia books by Adam Gopnik (in the New Yorker) and Meghan O’Rourke (in Slate).
From Gopnik:
Belizean-
Atheism is simply not the same as the lack of moral reasoning. Just because a person doesn’t believe in a god or practice a religion, doesn’t mean that they believe there will be “no consequences” to their actions.
And besides telling people not to do bad things in order to avoid some alleged eternal damnation is not really the most grown-up way to organize a society.
I couldn’t resist quoting this paragraph from Meghan O’Rourke’s essay:
One issue here is that both religious and non-religious people developed in a large dynamic world. We, the believers in Socratic humility (such as saying “I don’t know, but from what I’ve observed probably not”), opposed to those who choose to believe in fantastic explanations, both relate to each other through our experiences. Most non-god asserters do develop reactionary attitudes toward the mainstream because we are disenfranchised with the fixation on asserting fantastic, non-testable ideas that have a history and structural dynamic that encourages giving up the self to a higher power, (often, in practice, the lord, or kings or pope that has all the answers and all the guns).
The biggest reason that atheists are so distrusted is simple. Their position refutes the entire premise of the majority’s most sacred possession – IDENTITY.
People (well more people than before) have gotten used to the idea about his or her neighbor worshiping Athena instead of Zeus, or one of many Protestant variations of teh “Christian” god, and even the idea of Allah. (Hindus and Buddhist are more than likely seen as silly but well intentioned hippies, what with the multiple gods and whatever the hell that “Nirvana” thing is… some God like thing, right??)
Atheists and Agnostics and Transcendentalists, are by their very identity, opposed to the core philosophy of all those that bet their chips on some sentient deity – that life is bad and we need magic to fix it.
While this may seem a little harsh, let us not forget the god-morality connection in their minds. Good comes from an external imposition – God’s laws (or the rule of your Duke or whomever). They look to atheists as void of morality because they only conceive of an imposed morality instead of a natural one, or one chosen of true “free will.”
You don’t love your neighbor and show respect and kindness to the people and world around you because you HAVE to. You do it because it is inherently BETTER. IT IS THE REWARD. It is a better life.
What terrifies the believer is life. The unknown. What is lightning? well here is an answer!
I think that most of the leaders like Jesus and Muhammad and Buddha were, as a previous writer noted, using the power and fear of “magic” to encourage the ends and lessons that they valued. If you aren’t good you won’t get presents from a magical fat man.
Look, we all die.
Nothing matters in this or any world UNLESS YOU VALUE IT.
They value identity and psychological comfort over objective truth and honest humility.
The problem is having ship makers that don’t believe in buoyancy, so to speak.
Mind versus Matter? In the end, matter always wins.
Grey, I enjoyed reading your post. As Robert Carroll (skepdic.com) says, it would be a very scary world if the only concept of morality was one of fear of punishment.
I remember back when I was a Scientologist (I was born into it) the way psychiatry was viewed as the ultimate evil; I didn’t know a psychiatrist, and I doubt many other Scientologists know a psychiatrist. We fell into the trap of reaching conclusions about something we knew nothing about (other than what we were told by the church), and the results were emotions of true hatred and fear.
I know several people who happen to be Jewish. They are very decent, open-minded and tolerant.
I think it is a mistake to conclude that an entire class or group of people is “good” or “bad.” In most religions (and even other kinds of groups), there will be some people who go out to the extreme in belief, and some (probably many) who do not. Every person has some unique quality and does not deserve to be classified because of belief. Such a classification is like approximating a bell curve with a delta function.
Ponderer of things:
The carnage of the last century has been totted up and is summarised in The Economist’s Survey of the 20th Century. (The Economist, Sept11th-17th,1999) Mainly Godless governments slaughtered far more of their own citizens than were killed in international and civil wars. In units of millions of deaths, we have
Soviet Union 62
China (communist) 35
Germany 21
China (Kuomintang) 10
Japan 6
Deaths in International wars – 30
Deaths in civil wars – 7
Make of this what you will; the figures seem to tie in with Arun’s comments
As a Christian i am not of those who think atheists are persons of low or no integrity. On the contrary i am certain most (though not all) are persons of high integrity.
Just remember, however, that it is much easier for someone whose belief system is defined in terms of negation (as in “a-“theism)to maintain a position whereby any lack of integrity is less perceptible or even completely imperceptible. What is their standard ? Who sets it ? And who judges whether they have achieved it ?
Christians, on the other hand, hold to a positive personal ethic which is externally and not subjectively determined. So they are at a clear disadvantage. Their shortcomings are glaring and so open to being boldly trumpeted and paraded everywhere.
Also note that while very bad things have benn done and continue to done be done in the name of God or of religion the Guiness World Record holders of evil are the atheists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.
Amen. . .
To (most of) that Brother Celal aka Brother Hand Grenade of Moderation.
You are most graciously invited to enlist as a military pastor (who none-the-less keeps a few hand grenades handy for defensive purposes. . .) in my ongoing online Unitarian Jihad aka U*U Jihad®.
Allah prochaine,
The Dagger of Sweet Reason
PB2U and other like-minded Christians
Er. . . The Dagger of Sweet Reason’s U*U Jihad®!
Celal: Who judges whether God has achieved the standard? 😉
Celal makes a good point about clarity and judgment in terms of perceived standards. The religious structure does offer a more clear set of ethical codes to be judged by, however, I think part of the flaw in that is a fixation of surface morality and easily measured and judged fallacies opposed to the hard to judge ethics of “love your neighbor”.
There are external ethics, but they are subjective to the greater moral of identity within religoun. Because religious institutions are more social structure than proponent of earnest universal standards, the identity and balance of ethical standards are often distorted severely in practice.
Examples — the Catholic church rallying against gays in the priesthood, where all priests are supposed to be celibate — not sexual at all, while at the same time allowing/hiding pedophilia and sexual abuse. This is a product of identity solidarity (which adopts anti-gay as a pillar of identity) over universal ethics of protecting children.
I always said the best way to follow Christ is not to follow the example of “Christian” religions.
As for the numbers of deaths, it certainly cannot be contested that Stalin, Mao et all were horrible and that they were sort form of atheist. Clearly that argument is skewed in overlook the destruction of the old tribes of North and South America, Africa and all the others. — the point here is 1) the dichotomy explanation of god versus non-god inspired murders is disingenuous – other factors are far more decisive in the choice for genocides, such as identity supremacy 2) Blame is more often excused, or explained and eventually forgiven and forgotten for “our” group and held as a pillar of identity for the “other”.
We give the benefit of the doubt for our known group, such as massacres in southern Utah by LDS church officials, which are disavowed and forgotten/pardoned by members, and obviously not remembered fondly by those tribes, or others that adhere to universal decency over identity. This was a fluke, but the persecution of the Mormons by those in Illinois and elsewhere is seen as an indicator of true character.
The truth is not as cut and dry as those examples insinuate, but I hope that the point is illustrated.
Religion does a FAR better job at creating group identity (and all the faults that come with it) than “atheism”.
Nationalism (as well as solid ideology like communism opposed to the very loose ideology of ‘atheism’), however, DOES compete w/ religion on these identity factors.
To continue the train of through from Moshe above – what makes bad people do good things? Not religon, as such, but power.
Police, military, political and social pressure backed by real power to inforce, punish and reward behavior.
Religous institution have played a role in supplying some these elements of power to inforce decent behavior from people.
Better to have people that wont be decent on their own be decent for fantastic reason, then not at all.
The crucial part of that argument, Grey, is that “real power to enforce” is required to make bad people do good things. Religion alone (without a government or army to back it up) depends on one’s fear of a concept, such as Hell; whether or not Hell exists, an army probably carries more weight in a person’s decisions.
When a person’s religion is stripped away (there are any number of circumstances that can ruin a person’s faith), what is left? Unless there is the “power to enforce,” all you will have left is a bad person doing bad things.
On the other hand, for some people pressure from (friends, family, etc.) can easily act as “power to enforce,” and so no power of physical punishment may be necessary.
hi babboon,
what you’re saying paints a rather grim image of human nature. many non-religious people do good things without needing a carrot or a stick to motivate them, as you’re implying that religion provides. don’t discount altruism as a part of human nature, and our genes.
subodh
I was only talking about those people who would not act morally on their own – the “bad people who do good things” from Grey’s post. I think that many people can do good things without fear of punishment. My point was that religion alone, ultimately, does not necessarily ensure that people will be good.
i see babboon; good point, well made. and a point made every day on our tv screens i guess…
Good point, Babboon. Religon’s main power (other than times like the inquisition and crusades, which really are not indicative of the norm) is social pressure, which in a diverse society can be pretty weak, but if you consider the mullahs in Pakistan and how they influence people to take action, say against a tainted rape victim, then it can also be pretty strong.
I more real terms, it is hard to leave the world you know, like scientology or LDS in Utah or anything, because it is more than a religon, it is your firends and your familiy and the sturcture of how you relate to each other. Many friends of mine have families that don’t know how to live a secular life (not infusing religious perspective into all experiences) and as a result their children/brothers etc are isolated from them.
That part is more to do with sharing common activites, and the unwillingness of one party (generally the athiest/agnostic) to just follow the activites of the god-asserting majority.
I don’t like going to church w/ my very nice in sister in law, despite her understanable desire to share with me this thing that is important to her, i can’t help but desire to converse about it, instead of just abosrb their message, which would invaraibley lead me to pointing out flaws in the system and would look to her like i was simple putting down what she values (like saying your subjective hobby is no god) as opposed to arguing the objective reality of it and the flaw of making a leap of faith on a very specific item (like doctrine, and all the history and prophets and leaders that go along with that) opposed to a general sentient higher power.
It is not the lack of religion but the lack of belief in religion — the silly idea espoused by most atheists that religion is inessential and the world would be better off without it. Marx, a typical atheist, viewed religion as a coping mechanism of the weak rather than as the foundation of civilization.
1). In judging the effective of any influence on behavior, one must control for other suspected influences. Given that economic and social factors are equal between two groups, the religious group is less disposed to commit crimes. 2) You are incorrectly attempting to evaluate the effectiveness of religious constraints by focusing on the 1% of the population where it has failed (incarcerated prisoners) while ignoring the 90% in which it succeeded.
Sorry, but your meaning here is unclear. Understand that civilization, defined as large-scale cooperation between strangers, is unnatural. This unnatural cooperation results from the systematic parental labor in civilizing their inherently barbaric children. The means through which parents civilize them is to impart beliefs that act to suppress their children’s inherent savagery. We call such savagery-suppressing beliefs by a special name — “religion”. Even nonreligious people unwittingly teach their children religious ethics (free, of course, of doctrinal justification). The atheists who I’ve characterized as sophomoric are the ones who 1) don’t understand that they are completely dependent upon a pre-existing religious ethical heritage, and 2) don’t understand that to eliminate that religion, instead of improving it, is to destroy the civilization that it makes possible.
I am unaware of any widespread belief among nonreligious atheists in meaningful consequences to perpetrators of the anonymous commission by them of conventionally immoral acts. Unless it’s that they might, for example, briefly feel bad after murdering Grandpa in order to hasten the receipt of their inheritance.
*sigh* …jesus
You do have a lot of really good points, Belizean, but i disagree a couple key points.
1)ethics being inherantly religious – it is kind of a definition problem, but, i disagree that the perverbial chicken (religion def: the social institution, doctrinal explination and ethical rules) comes before the egg (golden rule ethics, inherant value humans find in social relations/friendships/spouses/, let alone the lord/serf factor in creating civilizations)
2)again, is the world bad and we have to fix it w/ magic? religon says yes and gives ethics (and explanations) that support it. non-god asserters would generally say no, life and existence are AWESOME! I love them! people just need to take responsiblity for them selves and for social contract issues.
There certainly has been a pre-existant religious heratige that should be appreciated, however, was truly the religon that pushed civil society forward? or was it independant thinking and actions that pushed religon in favor of the status qou forward?
It all depends on what you define the religion as – is religon Galileo trying to understand the wonderful world? or the church that jailed him for doing so?
Is it what Jesus taught about morals via ficticious stories? or the huge doctrinal infrastructure that came far after its founder?
The truth is really far to complicated for simple definitions.
The greatest fault of religion in general has been disassociating ethics from inherant values and reality – it opens the door to suicide bombings being completely ethical to that subjective perspective.
I’ve heard some religious people complain that atheists who behave decently are free riders sponging off of religion. These people see morality as arising from God through religion, and think that atheists are taking unfair advantage by adopting moral values without paying God the honor due him for supplying them.
By this perspective, atheists can’t win; they’re deserving of condemnation either way. Either they’re just plain immoral, or if they are moral they’re still being immoral by in some sense stealing their morality from the morality utility. It’s kind of like having an illegal cable descrambler.
Re 44: The first three statements are demostrably false as well as being inflamatory. I see no point in reading further.
In my opinion, the whole of comment #44 is baloney. The basis of morality is a recognition of yourself in the other. If I cause another to suffer, then I suffer too, in so far as I can imagine what another is feeling. None of this has anything to do with the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods. In fact religions tend to divide the world into believers (who deserve compassion) and nonbelievers (who don’t).
Why has nobody pointed out that atheists are typically humanists and moral relativists, who aren’t simply “atheists behaving decently’… for this reason?