CAPTAIN'S BLOG
This was written in response to this article on Salon, titled: "Atheists’ self-defeating superiority: Why joining forces with religion is best for non-believers" I'll jump right into what I think about this article, line by line: "I’ve written before about the root causes of religious conflict — in a nutshell: it is not about what many people would like you to think it’s about " This is just funny to me: that someone might sum up religious conflict using the phrase "It's not about what many people will try and make you think it's about" - which is a pretty strange way of putting it. And if I'm honest, no serious secular humanist would sincerely say that we "want" anyone to think anything in particular - we don't care what you think anywhere near as much as we care about /how/ you think. More on point, I think they should have said what the actual cause is: although that is revealed through the title of the linked article:
"Religion is a scapegoat: The problem isn’t Islam — it’s power" Which is not at all a statement that any reasonable secular humanist would disagree with. The Sam Harris-Style Secular Humanist view on this is to say "Exactly - and religion is a wonderful way of concentrating absolute power in the hands of one or a few people who think alike, and it is a great way to spread that infection to other people, given how it hinges on the tribalistic nature inherent in humanity. Since religion isn't, in particular, unique in it's usefulness, maybe we should consider other ways of thinking which do not expose us to the well-known dangers of religion." Then we talk about mindfulness, our shared union with the whole planet, even plants, through DNA, and the interconnected nature of humanity and the world upon which we thrive. We talk about what it means to kill animals for our sustenance, and something like valuing the wellbeing of all conscious creatures to the degree that they are conscious sounds like a good way to feed ourselves while maintaining a reasonable moral standard. And with that, we've got pretty much everything religion offers, not only without tribalism, but by actively acknowledging that we are all one big family. So this is why religious people think atheists are so arrogant, and superior: It's because we've really thought about everything, and have come up with a better idea. We talk to people about their beliefs, and we get, frankly, weird answers that are not at all sufficient from a scientific perspective. And since we've arrived on this solid ground via the scientific method, and there is evidence to the contrary of religious method, it seems slightly insane to continue supporting the religious method. It is akin to climate change denial and vaccine denialism. The author doesn't seem to understand any of this - and I consider that alarming, especially since they consider themselves to be an atheist. Since there is no central doctrine of atheism or secular humanism, that is not a surprise. But I think that anyone with a true interest in finding an alternative to religion just isn't looking in the right places - there is much fertile land over here. Anyways. That god a little carried away. Let's see how well I have anticipated their arguments. "Yes, religion has been a source of conflict for millennia—but religion is just an especially organized form of tribalism." He says this moments after recognizing that tribalism is a Bad Thing - a Thing to overcome. I agree 100% - and religion works against that goal. So you know, we shouldn't use it. "continue to employ the Us vs. Them rhetoric of tribalism." Sam Harris is the exception here - this shakes my confidence in the well-readness of the author. "But what these New Atheists fail to realize is that even if their criticisms of religion are correct, pointing them out does nothing to combat tribalism—in fact, it only strengthens it." I hear this argument in Canada a lot. I think it's the friendly nature of our country that lends itself to this argument. This is not the case though. It is for some people - just like it's pointless arguing with my Dad about his Conservatism. But not all people are as certain as he - if someone had drilled me on the logic of my arguments, my Conservatism and Religiosity would have dried up in front of their eyes. I was unsure, and misled with bad information. Once I finally got my hands on the right information, not to mention living in one of the most liberal cities in North America, things started to change pretty quickly. But I also hold myself to the principle of logical consistency - I cannot entertain wishful thinking for some things, but not others. It's too hard on my emotions - too much meaningless hope isn't a great thing for me, as it just leads to endless disappointment. "Their faith in the power of rationality, which is effective but not perfect, blinds them to the larger problem." I can't quite agree with this statement. The word faith is misused here - faith is belief without evidence. There is a great deal of evidence that rationality is... rational. Rationalism is also pretty damn reliable. I am not sure what could be more perfect that thinking rationally. Humans cannot /always/ think rationally, but much of the time, they can. Emotions are short burning - especially for a mindful mind - and the question of "where is this emotion coming from?" is a powerful, rational, question. "This isn’t surprising, because science has convincingly shown that individuals don’t really reason well on their own—our rationality is unreliable because of the pervasiveness of motivated reasoning. This suggests that the only cure for our cognitive biases is other people." Right. We're counting on the fact that at least one of these people will have at least temporarily mastered their emotions and are currently thinking rationally. This is a thing, and it happens, and there is no environment more conducive to this process than scientific conventions and peer review and competition and the need for evidence and repeatability and all the rest. So we need a structured way of thinking which will help us stay away from emotional, wishful thinking or motivated thinking. A framework upon which we can refer to what matters to us a society and what we should value. It is not easy to do such a thing, but it is much, much harder with religion. Hence the slowness of progress, and the accelerated rate of progress observed in secular nations around the world. " Ironically, we have to expand our notion of what our tribe is—with the ultimate goal of expanding that notion so wide that the tribal concept vanishes altogether. " What is a better way to do that, if not with secular humanist beliefs like the ones I described above? "We have to bring people together who will challenge each other’s positions while also being bound by having something in common, a common purpose or a set of common values" Sounds like science and scientific principles to me. "the best way to fight for social justice and pluralism is to ally ourselves with those who share the same values, regardless of their metaphysical beliefs." That sounds great - it really does - but until the books go away, religion is too dangerous and too easily abused. The books are the problems here. Believing in a god is not the problem - although it is entirely without merit, and I found it extremely uncomfortable when I thought it was so when I was young. "And there are progressive believers out there who would welcome the chance for atheists and believers to work together towards common social justice goals." I also can't really imagine why any atheist would not work together with a religious person or group just because they were religious, other than the likelihood that they've been harassed by religious people in the past for being atheist, like I have. Without a doubt, there are many wonderful religious people out there. The people aren't my concern though - the ideas are. "“The more that the atheist community moves beyond purely philosophical debates to embrace the practical pursuit of justice,” said Lee, “the more we can establish a reputation for ourselves as a force for good in the world.”" This is more than a little insulting. Atheists are absolutely doing that, and tend to do a much better job of that than religious moderates do. This article should be aimed at the moderates to organize and fight against the religious extremists who live near them, and especially in the US, influence elections, dress code, and all kinds of things they have no business messing with.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorChristina Hitchens is a trans female writer living in BC, Canada. She loves computers, animals, and a good argument. Archives
March 2022
Categories
All
|