Are we pushing too hard and fast?

[Kosh]

Maybe it's the sources I'm reading (FB, religious blogs), but it seems to me that there is a growing pushback from religious people on attempts to put religion back where it should be... i.e., separation of church and state.

Example: don't force Christian prayers at council meetings, FFRF lawsuits, Militant Atheism, etc.

And the comments seem to be leaning towards "we're being persecuted! We need to fight back!". Ken Ham of course has been vocal about this lately, trying to incite his followers for a "a new reformation".

Fighting back of course often leads to them voting for political candidates that wear their religion on the shoulder, trying to pass other laws in their favor. And if you get enough loonies involved... violence.

But we already see a general trend towards less religion. As the younger generation has more access to information and can figure out how fake it is, they simply stop believing. Which makes me wonder, are we pushing to hard? Would it better to just let things run their natural course and let people gradually lose interest over generations to where religion becomes insignificant? Vs. getting them riled up and try to take more control to fight for their beliefs?

 

[Kosh]

As a follow up, one thing that brought this to mind was remembering my reading of "Foundation", in which the fledgling (and expanding) foundation started to bump up against remnants of the older govt and had to be careful not to catch their attention.... (yes, I'm vague here... it's been a LOT of years)

 

[Keith&Co.]

But is this all that new, really? As long as I can remember, any effort to promote or shore up church/state separation has been perceived, at least by some, as persecution of the poor, miserable, marginalized Christains. Attempts to get church records about possible child molesters, attempts to isolate creationist science from public schools, attempts to curb school prayer, trying to close loopholes the fundies find (or insist are real), all are taken as persecution.

I think that what we're seeing is that other thing you mentioned, the attrition amongst the faithful. Churches are closing, losing the new generation to more laissez-faire spirituality, or NONE, and the writing on the wall is scary. So the same people are using the same rhetoric, but they're getting much, much louder about it.

 

[sharon45]

Which makes me wonder, are we pushing to hard?

No, and if anything, we are not pushing nearly enough.

Would it better to just let things run their natural course and let people gradually lose interest over generations to where religion becomes insignificant? Vs. getting them riled up and try to take more control to fight for their beliefs?

Again, no.

 

[Kharakov]

Remember, at the top of every church organization are a bunch of atheists who don't want to get caught.

 

[Brian63]

There definitely can be isolated acts by individual people that are going too far, but as a group, we are not doing enough. Religion is such a huge, monstrous impediment to so much progress being made on so many issues. Recently I wrote a post describing it more, and will just repost it here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ucing-religion&p=444777&viewfull=1#post444777

Over time, it has seemed more essential to me that we atheists, secularists, agnostics, etc. prioritize the reduction of religion over all other human traits. Religion holds back human progress on so many other issues, that our elimination of it we should see it as the focus of our efforts. Religion gives people invalid and ethically objectionable views on legal issues like gay rights, scientific issues like creationism/evolution, various social and psychological issues like how families function with each other (as one example, people may remain in “secular closets” for much of their lives because of fear of coming out of them), environmental issues like whether climate change is a real phenomenon, a person’s religion will be a dominant factor in choosing who to vote for in political elections which in turn affect us all, it may inspire some people to commit acts of terrorism against people who are not members of their particular religion, it affects people’s choices in determining their own personal medical care and end-of-life decisions, and much more.

A person’s religious beliefs are not just 1 view among a wide bundle of beliefs that they happened to hold. Rather, a person’s religious beliefs will greatly influence, practically determine, what their views will be on so many other issues as well. That affects them, as well as others near them, and all of us to some extent.

Not only does it affect what their other views will be on various matters, but it also influences (in a negative way) their underlying thought processes and how they use (or misuse) logic to form their worldviews. It relies on the ridiculous thought that it is a virtue to have belief without evidence (aka “faith”) to justify religious beliefs in particular. We human beings should instead treat it as a virtue to be open-minded and be willing to doubt our beliefs, think about our beliefs in more depth, and be willing to change our beliefs when the available evidence compels us to. Being open-minded should be considered a virtue, and not being closed-minded.

So I believe that it is important to devote some effort to change people’s views on specific issues like those listed above like gay rights, evolution/creationism, medical and health choices, and more, but still our primary efforts should be directed towards eliminating the harmful influence of religion. It is a roadblock in the way to so much progress, on so many issues, in so many ways.

To help achieve that, the most helpful thing a person can do is be an out-of-the-closet and outspoken atheist. Make it publicly known that atheists are real, we do not fit the negative stereotypes that religions declare about us, we have real disagreements with and objections to their religion (and are not just “searching for God” or trying to suppress hurtful feelings or other superficial declarations of our motives), and we are going to stand up for ourselves. It is okay to be an atheist, okay to doubt religions, okay to live a different lifestyle than the ones that religions impose on their followers.

Religion is the first thing that needs to be removed, before any real progress can be made.

Thoughts? Considerations?

Thanks,

Brian

Brian

 

[rousseau]

Pushing back against religion is how it runs it's natural course. If you don't push back there is no pressure forcing it to recede.

Take books like 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The God Delusion' by Dawkins. Their mere existence 'out there' has probably driven people away from religion in droves. The people who are unconvinced are either not ready to be convinced, or never will be.

One of the main under-currents of social progress amongst man-kind is 'collective communication'.. that is people sharing information with other people. Typically, the faster you share factual information with others, the faster the truth spreads. And so it's usually a good idea to continue speaking truth.

 

[Philos]

One of the main under-currents of social progress amongst man-kind is 'collective communication'.. that is people sharing information with other people. Typically, the faster you share factual information with others, the faster the truth spreads. And so it's usually a good idea to continue speaking truth.

rousseau,

I hope that you are right, not just about religion.

A.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Maybe it's the sources I'm reading (FB, religious blogs), but it seems to me that there is a growing pushback from religious people on attempts to put religion back where it should be... i.e., separation of church and state.

Example: don't force Christian prayers at council meetings, FFRF lawsuits, Militant Atheism, etc.

And the comments seem to be leaning towards "we're being persecuted! We need to fight back!". Ken Ham of course has been vocal about this lately, trying to incite his followers for a "a new reformation".

Fighting back of course often leads to them voting for political candidates that wear their religion on the shoulder, trying to pass other laws in their favor. And if you get enough loonies involved... violence.

But we already see a general trend towards less religion. As the younger generation has more access to information and can figure out how fake it is, they simply stop believing. Which makes me wonder, are we pushing to hard? Would it better to just let things run their natural course and let people gradually lose interest over generations to where religion becomes insignificant? Vs. getting them riled up and try to take more control to fight for their beliefs?

The New Atheism trend of the noughties came as a result of 2001 Barry Kosmin's the American Religious Survey. It showed that more people were identifying as religious. So a bunch of liberal intellectuals thought that atheism was losing the propaganda war. Before this liberals tended to assume that religion was inevitably marching towards its own demise. So we got New Atheism.

But under closer scrutiny the numbers of the American Religious Survey don't indicate a greater religiousity. It showed that people's beliefs were getting weirder and weirder. People were still fleeing from organised religions as they'd done since the 18'th century. Religion is still dying. Theism is becoming a more nebulous abstract concept. Buddhism is exploding, as well as pantheism. Two, arguably, atheistic religions or religious outlooks. People might remove the beliefs in a personal savior with the magical thinking of the Secret. New Age is still hugely popular and gaining new converts.

And with the fake news Internet trend I think we'll get increasing weirdness in religious belief. The study also found that most people don't like calling themselves atheists. It's boring. So even if they are atheists in practice, they prefer calling themselves something else.

I don't think pushing hard makes any difference. I think the New Atheism wave was mostly a waste of energy. It mostly preached to the choir.

Our greatest weapon against organised theistic religion is the fact that they aren't so good at offering consolation and emotional comfort anymore. They're badly adapted to the modern world. But that doesn't mean that whatever is replacing it is any better. I'm not so sure New Age is preferable to the Catholic church. But most importantly, it's out of your hands. Each believer must take the journey away from their God on their own. It's like being a recovering alcoholic.

So to sum up, I don't think it matters a damn how hard you push. If it makes you happy, go for it.

 

[abaddon]

Our greatest weapon against organised theistic religion is the fact that they aren't so good at offering consolation and emotional comfort anymore. They're badly adapted to the modern world. But that doesn't mean that whatever is replacing it is any better. I'm not so sure New Age is preferable to the Catholic church. But most importantly, it's out of your hands. Each believer must take the journey away from their God on their own. It's like being a recovering alcoholic.

My take is it's more an assault of consumer and technological society. It makes people too isolate and intent on being their own individuals (in spite of their incapacity for it) to be part of old establishments. Who wants to listen to some old man tell them how reality is (when they could be shopping)? Who wants to listen to some dreary academics babbling about studies and "facts" when people feel like numbers in a vast economic machine? The central issue is meaning. Atheists keep arguing facts with religious persons when the heart of the matter is, always, values and meaning.

So I wonder if a "none" is really an irreligious person, or someone who doesn't identify as religious but has Eckhart Tolle on her nightstand to deliver a message of "oneness" she gets nowhere else and also owns a tarot deck and "how to be your best self (most rich, most beautiful, most cool) through the wisdom of ancient masters" type books on her shelves, because she's really light and love and is "manifesting" her preferred reality. Maybe she'll want to join a community and deal with some other humans face to face... or not, maybe she can just share her "personal religion" on a Youtube channel instead.

Buddhism is exploding, as well as pantheism.

Pantheism is exploding? To me that's marvelous news if true. I wonder what your source of info is there? Or, by that term, did you mean a more general "new age" "religions of nature" movements like neo-paganism? It'd be great if naturalistic pantheism were growing, and it's much preferred to both traditional religions and the New Age's gnostic dualism. And better than secular humanist type atheism. The paradigm shift needed is a science-informed religiosity, where matter, earthly life and the saga of the Cosmos are sacralized -- not only humans and their possessions, as happens in the secular world. That religions will disappear is unlikely. The idea that liberal religion enables loony believers is unhelpful because it makes enemies of the only friends atheists have got outside their own paltry little circle.

Some think religion would be part of an effective response to the environmental crises (the problem that tops all others), since it's a great motivator of change. I'm in agreement with this view. A worthwhile sense of meaning would be a feeling of transcendence (which is an essential ingredient to meaningfulness) of the lone, atomized self that doesn't go out of the universe into a spirit-world. The "cosmic religion" spoken of by Einstein and Sagan and some others. Not the "religion is all evil" stuff that is both a falsehood and doomed to failure.

 

[rousseau]

One of the main under-currents of social progress amongst man-kind is 'collective communication'.. that is people sharing information with other people. Typically, the faster you share factual information with others, the faster the truth spreads. And so it's usually a good idea to continue speaking truth.

rousseau,

I hope that you are right, not just about religion.

A.

There's nothing in my post about averting catastrophe. That's just how social and technical change work.

 

[Ramaraksha]

No, and if anything, we are not pushing nearly enough.

Would it better to just let things run their natural course and let people gradually lose interest over generations to where religion becomes insignificant? Vs. getting them riled up and try to take more control to fight for their beliefs?

Again, no.

Exactly. Of course there will be a backlash - they are trying to protect their turf. What it means is that Atheists must be more vocal and stop supporting religious nut jobs. I don't get it why the european countries are supposedly Atheist but their flags don't say so. Time to change them

 

[sharon45]

I don't get it why the european countries are supposedly Atheist but their flags don't say so. Time to change them

They are mainly just simple geometric tokens.

 

[Ramaraksha]

I don't get it why the european countries are supposedly Atheist but their flags don't say so. Time to change them

They are mainly just simple geometric tokens.

Swastika would be as well?

 

[sharon45]

They are mainly just simple geometric tokens.

Swastika would be as well?

Obviously, it now more notoriously represents something, but besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, what is it honestly a picture of?

 

[Learner]

With the social technology network, I see both religious and atheists hard at work with their respective causes. Media entertainment is not in the favour of religion (unless its satanic ) ... but seriously not forgetting some of the social justice groups are fighting to make changes in religions if not trying to eventually ban faiths dependent on what they accept.

It may just be going your way after all to a certain extent with the push, generation by generation with new restrictions to faiths or forcing the lifting of restrictions in areas conflicting with faiths.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If think that the push back stems from the fact that it's more socially acceptable to criticize religion and its leaders no longer enjoy the privilege and relative immunity from questioning that they used to have. They feel a bit cornered and see the tide of history turning against them for the first time basically ever.

The pushback is the result of serious body blows against them and an indication that the current attitudes and actions are the correct ones. They know that their power and influence are going to diminish more and more and they have a limited time to be able to exert that influence. They cannot slowly and calmly work towards their goals.

 

[Learner]

I more or less wouldn't doubt it and putting aside in biblical sense that says; this situation is to be expected and more so. It does at least give concern and scrutiny to criticize those preaching who still remain financially successful for wealths sake or other seperate agenda rather than the goals of the gospel of Christ.

 

[sharon45]

I more or less wouldn't doubt it and putting aside in biblical sense that says; this situation is to be expected and more so. It does at least give concern and scrutiny to criticize those preaching who still remain financially successful for wealths sake or other seperate agenda rather than the goals of the gospel of Christ.

These supposed goals and gospel that practically every Christian views differently.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My take is it's more an assault of consumer and technological society. It makes people too isolate and intent on being their own individuals (in spite of their incapacity for it) to be part of old establishments. Who wants to listen to some old man tell them how reality is (when they could be shopping)? Who wants to listen to some dreary academics babbling about studies and "facts" when people feel like numbers in a vast economic machine? The central issue is meaning. Atheists keep arguing facts with religious persons when the heart of the matter is, always, values and meaning.

So I wonder if a "none" is really an irreligious person, or someone who doesn't identify as religious but has Eckhart Tolle on her nightstand to deliver a message of "oneness" she gets nowhere else and also owns a tarot deck and "how to be your best self (most rich, most beautiful, most cool) through the wisdom of ancient masters" type books on her shelves, because she's really light and love and is "manifesting" her preferred reality. Maybe she'll want to join a community and deal with some other humans face to face... or not, maybe she can just share her "personal religion" on a Youtube channel instead.

I think people wanting to be their own man is out of fashion. The new thing is wanting to belong, and have a strong and distinct group identity. Well... atheism is completely useless for this, as it's a non-identity.

Buddhism is exploding, as well as pantheism.

Pantheism is exploding? To me that's marvelous news if true. I wonder what your source of info is there? Or, by that term, did you mean a more general "new age" "religions of nature" movements like neo-paganism? It'd be great if naturalistic pantheism were growing, and it's much preferred to both traditional religions and the New Age's gnostic dualism. And better than secular humanist type atheism. The paradigm shift needed is a science-informed religiosity, where matter, earthly life and the saga of the Cosmos are sacralized -- not only humans and their possessions, as happens in the secular world. That religions will disappear is unlikely. The idea that liberal religion enables loony believers is unhelpful because it makes enemies of the only friends atheists have got outside their own paltry little circle.

Some think religion would be part of an effective response to the environmental crises (the problem that tops all others), since it's a great motivator of change. I'm in agreement with this view. A worthwhile sense of meaning would be a feeling of transcendence (which is an essential ingredient to meaningfulness) of the lone, atomized self that doesn't go out of the universe into a spirit-world. The "cosmic religion" spoken of by Einstein and Sagan and some others. Not the "religion is all evil" stuff that is both a falsehood and doomed to failure.

I've got old numbers. Turns out the last big study that could catch this was 2001. I guess we'll just have to wait to know for sure. The studies we've had since there are more binary, (rather than focusing on what people actually believe) they focus on what people identify as.

Turns out that Islam is the fastest growing religion today. But there's problems with this. Most of the new converts are in countries where the gathering of statistics is unreliable. And since Islam in many countries are a force in politics, it's doubly unreliable numbers. Islam is one of those religions where a lot of them identify as being Muslims even when being an out-of-the-closet atheist. Judaism is another religion where "believers" are fine about identifying as Jews while not giving a hoot about any of the religious stuff and being aggressively and militantly atheist.

We just don't know.