Atheistic Evangelism

Religious thinking infects the whole world view of the religious person, so they approach science by religious rules and find it wanting. For instance, the believer may feel that science is a matter of belief, authority, and orthodoxy rather than understanding that it is a competitive epistemology where ideas survive under tough rules of verifiability. The greatest scientist in the world can be conclusively knocked down by a better (in scientific terms) theory, whereas high religious leaders are 'in for life'.

These differences are opaque to the believer, who has been carefully conditioned to accept ideas that make the biggest promises, rather than the ones (however unpalatable) that stand up to the brightest light.

The same misunderstanding happens in reverse: naturalists often argue against religious concepts as if the rules of naturalism were in play. For all his acumen, Dawkins misunderstands religion on several levels. He approaches religion by scientific rules and is then shocked when religious people don't say; "Of course!"

So to use language that has a familiar meaning to the believer is a big mistake. We need to use language that is congruent with our methodologies or risk sharing the same epistemological ground with religion.

I have to disagree on two points. First, I think it's a bad idea to raid the evangelical Christians' vocabulary in order to describe who we are and what we're doing. At what point, then, does it end? Do we write a creed, draw up a list of commandments, and pledge to live by certain rules? Do we harass people for being religious? Do we develop techniques for indoctrinating young people? Do we refuse to have intelligent conversations about faith and lake thereof with agnostics, unitarians, discordians, pagans, spiritualists, etc., because they're "just like everyone else"? Aren't these the very things we don't like about religion?

Second, although I consider myself a humanist, I'm not at all comfortable with this image of all atheists being on a "mission" to "convert" everyone else in the human race. I know people of several different faiths who are devout; they're all very nice people who always try to do what's right, and I don't think any less of them because they draw their inspiration from their belief in a divinity. They know where I stand and they respect that--I think it would be unjust not to give them that same respect. I say, as long as people care about doing good things in the world, then does it really matter what drives them? Let's concentrate on fighting intolerance, injustice, and abuses of faith, rather than the blanket idea of faith itself.

I have contemplated this question on more than one occasion. The question being of course: "If you could convert the species with the wave of a mind probe would you?"

So there it is. Would the world be a better place if everyone was an atheist? Some people's perceptions of god spur them to do very charitable things. Some people's conception of god lead them to commit atrocities. I personally do not have an enormous balance to weigh each side and come to any o0bjective conclusion as to which is the larger. There is another nagging subsidiary question though. Absent the concept of god would some other meme take gods place and again inspire horrors and wonders? My answer is: I think so. There are in fact several meme's waiting in the wings ready to step into the god-vacuum:

Politics - Countries are nothing more or less than arbitrary lines drawn on a map typically with an additional piece of paper with some words written on it as a 'founding document'. A constitution for example. In addition to these two things the country meme is generally represented by a collection of symbols (flags, animals, structures or natural areas). People kill in the name of the country meme. People die in the name of this meme. People create works of art and structures in the name of this meme.

Money - No doubt money began its meme-life as a useful time saving convention since it is difficult to put a herd of cattle in your pocket (and what is the cow to sheep exchange rate anyway?), but the money meme has now taken on a life of its own. Although it does not have a map associated with it it does have buildings. As with the others people kill for it, people die for it, people create works of art based on it.

Love - Love is the relationship that you have with an image of someone or something that you have formed in your mind. Reality and reciprocation are most certainly not requirements for love. Love has few edifices devoted exclusively to it, but I think it more than makes up for this in the sheer volume of artwork that has been dedicated to it; film, songs, paintings etc. and all for something no more real than some neuron activity. You know the drill by now. People kill for love, die for love and as mentioned previously, create a lot of art for it.

My apologies to any deserving memes that I left off this list.

So then, would Atheist World be substantially better than the one that we have now? That question will no doubt remain rhetorical well into the foreseeable future, but human nature being what it is, if religion disappeared tomorrow I don't think conditions would improve markedly. There would be horrors and wonders aplenty done in the name of the State, in the name of Money, and in the name of Love.

Co-operatively our species can do anything that it is possible to do. What we lack is a sense of collective purpose. Atheism alone will not provide that though competing (and unverifiable) religions certainly makes finding such a purpose more difficult.

So would I convert everyone to atheism overnight if I suddenly happened on The Method? No. Would I awaken everyone to a sense of worthwhile species purpose if I could do that? You betcha.

It is definitely important to distinguish atheism from religion, not just to argue about God (He is infinitely slippery). The importance is not the God-belief so much as the reliance on faith. I think we should stick to this issue as much as possible, and one great way to get there is to be very clear about what distinguishes atheism from religion.

I think the biggest reason why people think atheism is a religion is that they think all atheists are "strong atheists", with an absolute certainty in God's non-existence and a corresponding absolute certainty in materialism/science/rationalism.

This gives us all a tremendous opportunity to defend the true meaning of atheism (literally "non-theism"), while also leading the conversation to the question of faith itself (how can it possibly be better than evidence for leading one toward the truth?).

Any "conversion" -- which translates in my head as "trading one unconsidered conviction for another" -- would be a shallow thing.

As it took me a good 20 years to really begin to understand what religion had done in my head, and root it out, I couldn't term my own experience a conversion. It was an awakening, followed by a long campaign of reason-based ferreting-out and discarding of religious/superstitious ideas.

It was like weeding a garden, so that the vegetables (useful thoughts and ideas) and flowers (creativity) could have room to grow.

I WOULD like to see the atheist equivalent of Chick Tracts in daily use. As I see religion as a form of mental slavery, I think those of us who self-identify as atheists should make some sort of effort at an Underground Railroad, helping those enslaved (starting with young people) to freedom.

The tards on the other side will call it evangelism, and will shriek that atheism is just another religion. And the media will continue to give them microphones and cameras to say such stuff, and even stupider things. But all that will happen no matter what. Fuck 'em.

The words are important. But MORE important is actually getting out and talking to young people, REAL people, about the REAL issue.

Every person reading this, if you haven't talked to at least ONE young person about the non-existence of gods, you're probably -- in the big picture of what's happening today with religion -- failing to defend yourself.

Really, it's okay to talk to them. More than half will be glad to have someone to bounce ideas off of -- ideas they're already having on their own.

1. Is it reasonable to treat atheism as "just another religion" and use all of the religious terms to describe it (fundamentalists, faith, etc.)?

2. Is deconversion (and ultimately elimination of religion) the best goal?

For #1, the answer is NO! This is a new strategy by theists because it's easier for them to dismiss atheism if they treat it as just another religion. We should be very clear about what it actually is: a real alternative to religion. If the believers feel threatened by that, too bad.

#2 is a more complicated question that I think we atheists should be discussing. I've just written a post explaining some reasons not to adopt "deconvert the world" as a primary goal here. However, you've got some good counter-arguments here, so there's room to turn it into a lively debate! ;)

I think it's a bad idea to try and take religious language and "run" with it. It further reinforces the thought that atheism is just another religion, which in my opinion is probably the worst thing people can think about us. I have no religion.

A lot of people nowadays are becoming a little more accepting of atheism, but only because they consider it as if it were another religion. They're being tolerant, but only in the same way they may be tolerant of a friend who has some fringe belief. I think terms like "evangelical" or "convert" are hurting atheism more than helping it.

Why do we keep using these contradictory terms? I mean, a completely secular world-view shouldn't be described in religious terms. It's just misleading. You might as well call the whole "New Atheism" movement "The Atheist Crusades". I'm sure somebody could argue a very good case for 'crusade' not being religious, but that still doesn't change the public perception.

I say drop the religious connotations, Brent. You've debated the religious, you've debated creationists - you know their tactics. Without hesitation, they will use anything they can to make you sound like one of them.

Atheism is clearly not just another religious kind of thinking, and to propose that is, frankly, an idiot way of thinking. Not surprising what with it being a tool for religious folks to use to argue against Atheism, and for people who just don't know any better (read: idiots). If one wants to use the word "evangelical" to refer to speaking with enthusiasm, then fine. Then Atheists can indeed be "evangelical." If one wants to use the term in the religious sense, then no, we're not "evangelical." Furthermore, when I "convert" my dollars into pounds and then back again, in no way is my money going through a religious transformation. When one goes from being religious to being an Atheist, it isn't a religious transformation. When they go from Islam to Christianity, for example, then that can be called a religious transformation. Going from religion to Atheism is just "converting" from irrationality to rationality--it just a form of learning. One can learn about, say, nature and be expanding their knowledge base. One can learn about the Bible and also be expanding their knowledge base. One is useful, the other is not. One is religious and the other is not.

All of this seems infinitely clear to me, and I honestly can't believe people would really be so stupid as to equate Atheism to religion, and so, I must assume that this concept is, and only is, a tool to attack Atheism, and although we can repel this attack, it's galling to think we have to justify our position when it's so painfully apparent. As for the semantics, if people want to use these words in a non-religious way, then we can work with them. If they insist on couching the dialog in what they see to be religious terms, then why bother? They're speaking another language.

"Please don't beat Teddy." - Teddy, Night of the Seagulls

But would you agree that even if atheism isnt a religion, it does have a theology? Since any atheist worthy of the name has to have made a study of the case for the existence of God and has concluded that a belief in a God or gods is unreasonable. This 'disproof' would then be the atheist theology, which could be summed up as "There is no god because..."

If there is indeed an atheist theology, theology being an ostensibly religious word, I couldnt see why 'atheistic evangelism' would be such a big problem. Euaggelion means good news, ergo atheistic evangelism is just proclaiming the 'good news' of atheism.

(Am a theist, by the way.)

I was not brought up with religious belief; my father felt that everybody should find his own way through life or as he put it, "learn from his own mistakes." So I have no religious baggage to despise, get rid of, or rebel against. I guess I am fundamentally a live-and-let-live person. I despise people who try to convert others to their religion, so I don't try to convert people to my way of being, nor am I inclined to persuade others that I have found the truth. I am more inclined to let myself be an example of a decent person who happens to be an atheist, who is comfortable in his atheism, and who is happy to discuss what he thinks and how he lives. I know that I have led a couple of people to shift their thinking about atheism, as they try to reconcile their notions of what that must be with what they like about me.

I probably won't turn the world around, but I have touched other people in ways that they didn't expect, and I'm happy with that.

Frank Moorman, skeptic

I'm not an evangelical/substitute-word-of-your-choice atheist, but if someone wants to know what my beliefs are, and I'm in a better mood than "mind your own damn business", I will be open about being an atheist and will stand up for atheism - especially if they denigrate atheism and try to convert or insult me. But I don't expect to change anyone's mind. If they just close their minds and tune out anything that doesn't comply with their dogma, I have no respect for them. If they at least think about alternative worldviews and try to put themselves in the shoes of others who don't believe as they do, I have a bit more respect for them even if they end up believing the same crap as before. To me, refusing to think for yourself is a crime and mental slavery is the worst kind.

- No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Terms like "evangelical" and "evangelism" have too strong of a religious connotation to be used in the context of atheism. Evangelism smacks of dogma, so I prefer education. I could call myself an atheist educator or an atheist activist, but I'll never agree to the evangelist label.

Put me down for "NO" re: evangelism but I do think that it would be a boon for society if more atheists would dispense with the notion that the religious are a monolithic entity incapable of change and therefore a public defense of atheism is a contentious waste of time.

Here in the States, the presence of vocal atheists in public discourse is badly needed to contravene the overwhelming sense of entitlement. and pretendsion to moral hegemony, indulged in by far too many evangelically religious.

I speak as someone for whom the writings of a public intellectual, Bertrand Russell, were the catalyst that eventually led to the conclusion that the religion of my upbringing was cut more from the cloth of tradition than truth.

Enda.

I think the REAL reason atheists tend to not favor evangelism is simply a holdover from most previous history and cultures, when we could be killed for trying it.

Sure, we all want to believe the path to atheism is a noble individual journey. But think of your own journey and ask yourself: Wouldn't it have been nice to have somebody to talk to? Could you have shortened the trip with a mentor who'd already been along that same path? Would it have been less lonely? Less scary? Less uncertain?

And don't you think there are several million young people out there in that exact same situation, right now?

NOT selling atheism and reason is a drastic mistake, socially and culturally. Civilization is fragile, and reason is the only glue that holds it together. Most of our fellow humans -- most of US -- are only a very short step up from screaming apes. Put us under extreme pressure -- a Katrina, or a Sept. 11, or a nuclear strike -- and we could be right back there.

Reactions of the religious to suggestions that maybe they should give up their pet sky-daddy beliefs are not wholly unlike the reactions of substance abusers when confronted with the advice to give up their drug of choice...the usual reaction is one of denial, projection, etc..."I don't have a problem, YOU have a problem", or "Life would be awful without ____(fill in the blank)_____".

As an atheist and an alcoholic who recovered through Rational Recovery (RR), it's interesting to have this perspective. The trouble with AA, from my POV, is the substitution of one delusion (alcoholism) for another (God-belief). I do actually attend a local AA (I keep quiet about my atheism and about RR), which is always fascinating. I appreciate the stories that stay down-to-earth and very human; and roll my eyes at the participants who launch into their pet Gawd-rants every time.

There is unfortunately no 12-step program for Religion, because the steps themselves are all religious in nature (I don't buy that "Spiritual Not Religious" crap). In truth, there's only one step...."This is how your brain & body works & it fits in with how reality works, so now WHAT are you going to do with that knowledge?"

That's true for alcoholism or religion...the only real road to recovery is to embrace the Rational and the REAL. The other choice is to keep seeing if your delusions will keep "working" for you...both are diseases of the mind, both will get progressively worse over time unless positive action is taken for reaching for true mental health.

Just my $0.02 worth.

--JJR