The latest wave
of atheism – New Atheism – has come together as a functional unit within the
last few years to actively promote reason and science (but mostly science
because there must be evidence for scientific beliefs) over superstition. New
Atheists seek to eradicate religion based on the assertion that people who hold
religious beliefs are essentially harmful to society, if not themselves. Ask
any militant atheist why they would like to see religion abolished and you’re
likely to get an answer to the effect, “Just look at all the wars that religion
has started!” or “Religion is just a means by which people control one
another.” To these charges I say first of all, the evidence is not there that
most wars are religious in nature. That is a positively false assertion. Second,
religion is no more a means to control people than most forms of government.
There is also the unwritten social contract; is that not a mean by which to
control people? Just because one doesn’t like the form of control in their
given culture (Christianity in the U.S. for example) doesn’t lend any weight to
assertions about religion being used to control people. Take away religion and
people will surely think of other ways to control each other. That much is obvious.
You may also
hear words such as these from Portland State University’s Dr. Peter Boghossian
on why religion is bad, “Faith is pretending to know something you don’t know,”
meaning, there is no evidence for religious beliefs and we shouldn’t hold any
belief without evidence. I’d surely agree with Dr. Boghossian except that
people – including Dr. Boghossian – hold beliefs without evidence all the time;
this is another assertion that isn’t exclusive to religious beliefs. At any
rate, Dr. Boghossian believes being religious means you cannot reason correctly
and if one cannot reason correctly, one is likely to visit their irrationality
on the rest of society. Essential, he is saying that religious beliefs make for
bad people.
Is that true,
does holding religious beliefs make people behave in a way that is harmful to
society? It may be true that countries that are less religious appear to score
higher on surveys about happiness, but is this actually due to the fact that
such countries are less religious or are there other factors at work? The U.S.,
for example, is often cited as the most religious industrialized country and
scores somewhere in the middle of countries surveyed on happiness levels.
However, there is great economic disparity in the U.S. as well as political
divisions and racial tensions, to name several factors that may be contributing
to the country’s mediocre happiness level. Thus, one cannot simply state that
the U.S. is an unhappy country because most of its citizens are religious;
that’s absurd. Of course, New Atheists will be quick to say religious beliefs are
the primary contributor to political divisions and racial tension in the U.S.
(even though religion would once again not be the sole contributing factor and
cannot be shown to be the primary cause). Even if such a defense were true,
religion doesn’t explain the U.S.’s incredible economic disparity.
Moreover, it
would be reasonable to assume that if everyone in any given culture or country
believed and followed the tenets of one single religion where that religion
dominated the culture or country both socially and economically, the culture or
country would score reasonably high when their happiness level was surveyed.
(Granted, it is possible some people may answer they are happy when they are
not out of fear, but we cannot possibly know they are lying without brain
scanning/imaging.) The people insisting that religion is harmful to society are
the people who do not want to be subjected to or live by the tenets of
religions because said religious beliefs conflict with the way they want to
behave. The struggle for New Atheists is to gain individual freedom by
abolishing the beliefs that stand in their way. (Theists do have a point when
charging atheists with wanting to behave in whatever manner pleases them, but
we must note that such a charge is not a defense since theists likewise want to
behave in a way that suits themselves.) I do believe New Atheists are correct
to raise such an issue when states like Texas are explicit in their charters
that atheists are not allowed to hold office. However, is religion really to
blame for Texas’ law or do Texans simply fear people too much unlike
themselves? Fearing people outside our circle, group, clan, etc. is again something
that is not particular to religious belief. Non-U.S. citizens cannot hold the
U.S. presidency; that’s not a matter of religious belief.
I can see how
people with religious beliefs can come off as bad people based upon observing
them bluntly insist that their religion is the one true religion and if you
don’t believe it you’re going to Hell. (That or they insist you must believe
because they believe it.) Once again, again, shouting at people that the belief
you hold is the one true belief is not particular to religion; conspiracy
theorists come to mind. Religious people can also seem particularly horrible if
you grew up with them and your individual freedoms were infringed for a good
part of your life. We get it; you’re bitter. Fair enough. But I must insist
that religion is not what made such parents or siblings control another family
member. If I may cite my own childhood experience, my father certainly tried to
control me but he never used religion to do it. It’s not religion at work.
Religion is not what makes people want to control each other or what makes them
irrational. The desire for control, whether over the world or over other
people, and the ability to be irrational is as old as the human race. Our
species pre-dates religion. There is no “chicken or the egg” riddle here. People
have to already be irrational on some level prior to accepting religion.
If New Atheists
want to be respected on the basis of having evidence for their beliefs, they
should try actually analyzing their evidence, asking questions that do not
simply confirm their bias, and give up their beliefs where the evidence is
lacking. Religion is obviously not what makes people bad; if you took away
religion people would still treat each other with contempt, if not something
worse. A recent article in Time
magazine (Dec 2013) highlights something of a gender war in the happy,
non-religious country of Sweden, where gender pronouns are being done away with
while male-bashing is becoming a cultural norm. Is it too early to tell if this
is good or bad for society? The point is, in this instance, religion isn’t
responsible for the suppression of a group of people.
I don’t like
being the bearer of bad news for New Atheists, not since their primal instincts
will drive them to insist I am wrong and drive me out of town for not believing
what they believe. They can believe it all they want, but being free of
religious beliefs doesn’t make someone any better for society than anyone
else. All evidence suggests that
multiple factors are responsible for whether a person behaves beneficially for
society or not. Leave it to so-called “smart people” to oversimplify the issue.
