Words from a Proud Neville Chamberlain Atheist

 
Chris is a cognitive psychologist (Mixing Memory). He claims to be a proud Neville Chamberlain atheist. He writes about Religion and Social Critique.

While I think it's obvious to anyone with eyes (a category that seems to grow smaller by the day) that within the anti-religious bigotry today there is an underlying feeling of superiority, an unliberal belittling of the little guy, a feeling that "Joe Schmoe" is stupid and to some extent worth less than the intellectually righteous secularist, ...

Whoa! I think he's talking 'bout people like me here. First of all, I'm not a bigot. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about rationalism and superstition then it's best to avoid that term unless you can back it up. Second, I do feel strongly that my opinion is better than contrary opinions. Are there any other possibilities? Are there some people who feel that their opinions are unworthy? Thirdly, some of the people who believe in superstitious nonsense really are stupid. And they really are bigots—yes, I can back that up.

(Incidentally, I'm sure that in the interests of fairness, Chris has posted a strong criticism of the bigotry and intolerance of religious leaders in the USA. I look forward to getting the URL to those postings.)

... there is another element to rabid atheist criticisms of religion that I find both disturbing and puzzling. As many of the comments to my recent post and Pharyngula's post on the same topic illustrate, these criticisms of religion are largely based on its perceived social and political effects. That is, the critique of religion by these atheists (let's call them Churchillians) is a social critique.

Oh, that's a relief. It's not me he's referring to. My criticism of religion is based on the idea that its supporters believe in supernatural beings. That's a delusion because there's no evidence of supernatural beings. The fact that some religions are sexist, racist, and homophobic is incidental. I'm well aware of the fact that this doesn't apply to all religions. I'm equally opposed to the more liberal versions of religion because the underlying premise is wrong, in my opinion.

This is the part that Chris and his fellow appeasers don't get. They oppose the extreme versions of religion because of the outward manifestations of social behavior. But they give a free pass to all those superstitions that don't recruit suicide bombers or put women in the back pews. I don't make that distinction. To me the battle is between rationalism and superstition. The social critique is secondary.

What I find disturbing and puzzling about it is its naïveté. As I believe fellow ScienceBlogger and Chaimberlainian atheist Razib has pointed out before (I don't have a link right now, but if he gives me one, I'll add it later), religion is such an effective user of our cognitive and social composition that it falls naturally out of them. So naturally, in fact, that there is no reason to believe that religion is going away, much less that it is possible, through accusation and invective, to facilitate religion's demise. In other words, as social critiques go, the Churchillians' is about as ineffective as you'll find.

Chris, I'll let you in on a little secret. I don't hide my light under a bushel just because I think my chances of changing the world are slim. So, even if it were true that the USA will always be strongly religious that wouldn't be a reason to keep quiet. I don't believe that America is going to accept gays and lesbians anytime soon but that's not a reason to give up the fight. Or, do you think it is? Do you advocate an appeaser position toward homophobic bigots on the grounds that you'll never change their minds?

But, setting the illogic of your argument aside, let's think about the future of religion. European societies became more and more secular in the 20th century. Canada is much, much less religious than the USA. Do you really think that America will resist the change? I don't. Furthermore, I think your statement that the "Churchillians" are being ineffective is patently absurd. Richard Dawkins has done more to stimulate debate about atheism than hundreds of appeasers. Although you misrepresent his position, the fact is that by being blunt he has got people's attention and that's the first step toward getting them to question their beliefs.

Would it not be better to recognize that the content of specific religions has, historically, varied according to the spirit of the times, and therefore the most effective avenue for social critique is to focus on changing that spirit, thereby necessarily effecting change in the content of religion? If you want to make the religious less intolerant, and less hostile towards members of outgroups, wouldn't it be better to work towards a society that is itself less intolerant and hostile towards members of outgrups?

Yes, if your only goal is to make people more tolerant then that's what you should do. Meanwhile, some of us are trying to get people to abandon superstition—that's a different goal.

In other words, it seems to me that the problem with the Churchillian critique is that it mistakes a symptom for the cause; it fails to recognize that religions are, as they have always beens (and as any social institutions are and will alway be), tools of power and domination, and that the object of critique should be the powerful and the dominant.

Wrong. It is you who is making the mistake. The "Churchillians" are opposed to superstition because it's not rational. We don't distinguish between superstitions that are associated with intolerance and those that aren't. Why is this so difficult to understand?

I think, for example, of the ways in which religion and society changed together in 18th century Europe, or the differences between the focus and attitudes of the religious in many European countries as opposed to the United States today. Religions that have survived for millennia have done so because they are incredibly adaptive, and it is the responsibility of anyone with a progressive world-view, recognizing that religion will not go away, to force religion to change by changing its environment and thereby forcing it to adapt. Calling religious people stupid, and treating religion as inherently evil, simply won't accomplish that.

My goal is to achieve a society where there is no religion. I want people to stop believing in supernatural beings for which there is no evidence. I would also like to live in a society with a "more progressive world-view." Both goals are achievable. We don't want an atheistic intolerant society any more than we want a religious intolerant society.