The Campaign for Atheism

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Humans will believe in whatever is most evolutionarily beneficial for them to believe. If two beliefs conflict, as atheism and theism do, the most beneficial will always be chosen. Right now, it seems that the most beneficial is religion.

Religion is very beneficial for people, as it supplies them with morals and social structure. Right now, Atheism is not very beneficial, as it supplies them nothing. The only benefit of atheism is that it has none of the problems of religion, namely, misinterpretation (nothing to interpret) resulting in wars, and resistance to science.

For atheism to be accepted by the majority, it needs to supply the things religion supplies, without the major problems of religion. That should be its mission.

There will be four parts to this campaign: deciding whether atheism has the potential to be more beneficial than theism, evaluating the benefits of theism (what atheism must replace), structuring (creating) an atheist group belief that is more beneficial than theism, and spreading this viewpoint.

For the purpose of this discussion, we will forgo the first step, assuming that atheism has the potential to be more beneficial than theism. This is not to be debated.

Next, we must look at the benefits of theism. We will use Christianity as our example, as in North America and Europe it seems to be the predominant religion.

So, what are the benefits of theism. I have some ideas but am too pooped to tell them right now. I will say that I think there are two categories, benefits of theism that are bestowed when the belief held by a single person, and benefits that only occur when the belief is held by a group (which should be specified, i.e., a town, a family, so on).

Go at it. I’ll be back.

2

First off, I’m a little upset about your Dawkins being a plant comment. :stuck_out_tongue: With that aside, I will comment on your post.

A new belief system does not need to be created to replace theism. It’s always existed, and it’s called empiricism. It’s finding an accurate worldview based on facts, and we’ve been doing it since the beginnings of science and philosophy.

We’re already most of the way there. The only ones who scream out for a replacement for their current beliefs are theists. This is out of the assumption that somehow not believing in God will drastically change peoples’ lives, and for some it would; however, most, like upon learning of the death of a loved one, will come to terms with it, find a way to deal with it in their own personal way, and do what we all have to do: move on.

Even if theism was better for humanity overall (I don’t see how this is possible), I still can’t find that preferred to knowing the truth. As Dawkins points out (and you would inevitably agree), some prefer to know the truth as opposed to being comforted by a lie. If you were dying of a disease, would you rather know you were dying or be lied to just to make you feel better?

I personally would want to know.

3

The trick with such a worldview is: what kind of metaphysics does it embrace?

Kantian? Marxists? Hegelian?

Or do we go off the deep-end and show that, because of induction, we can’t know anything and totally give up and wander around like zombies?

If you are planning on rejecting Hume, what system do you build up in its place? Will the new system favour utilitarian ends, or some other system?

4

Undoubtedly a great question. Now imagine all eight billion people on our planet focused on answering such a question, instead of just the small fraction who aren’t diverted by faith-based religious beliefs.

5

How do you propose they go about answering that question?

Many people seem to have answered it with theism. I’m willing to wager that, given the choice, they would do so again.

If TheZeus wants to ‘beat’ religion as he claims, then there needs to be something to beat it with besides nihilism. Now, I don’t think atheism is nihilism (I am an atheist, after all) but I do think that taking away something that is quite meaningful to many and seems to do a fair amount of good (as well as evil, mind you) is pretty nihilistic, don’t you?

6

Sorry dork, but there is no “truth”. Or, really, the “truth” is chosen pragmatically by all humans, and it just so happens that pragmatic truth most often corresponds to real truth, because they’re both the same.

I disagree. First, if religion had no benefit it would not be held by anybody (to disagree with this point is to get into beliefs). Thus religion must have benefit, as it is held by people. If you look at Christianity, you will find that it has many benefits when held by a society. It helps if you know something about morality, and I am too pooped to explain right now.

But what detriment is there to replacing their beliefs? You, dorkydood, are an atheist, as am I. But you and your ilk don’t seem to use reason and logic when it comes to spreading your beliefs! Why not use your knowledge of sociology and psychology in your favor? By refusing to do so you’re just making this unnecessarily hard.

7

YES YES! You get it. Thank you. Atheists are not doing themselves any favors when they present themselves as nihilists, like that dumb ass Dawkins.

As for metaphysics, I have no knowledge in that area. Would you help?

8

Atheism is belief in nothing, there in no absolute or purpose in atheism so there in no consequences beyond this limited life and no reason to do anything. There is no truth or right or wrong in atheism, no evil, only popular beliefs that change from society to society and time to time. This has never at any time been the majority view of the earth’s population, and for good reason. Most see the purpose in life and the continuity in all the natural laws as well as the obvious consequences of disobeying them.

All the proof to a designer is in nature its self; if you can’t see it you are not a very good observer. Atheism will always be the minority irrational view held by those who are too frightened by the idea that we are all responsible for our selfish and hurtful actions and the consequences will reach beyond the physical dimension into the afterlife.

Now that’s frightening.

9

shrugs I figure the best way to get a metaphysics is to latch onto something that already exists.

Look at the different strains of humanism out there and build off of that. This path has an obvious problem though – if you create a system of beliefs based on unverifiable* ideas (i.e. metaphysics) haven’t you essentially re-created religion, God or no?

What are your current metaphysical leanings?

  • I use ‘unverifiable’ as opposed to ‘unprovable’ for the reason that you gave earlier. We can’t necessarily ‘prove’ quantum physics, but we can verify that the theory of quantum physics works.
10

I strongly disagree that humans generally make decisions of this type as a result of an analysis of whether it’s beneficial or not. These decisions are generally, I think, based upon emotion and societal pressure. An example of this type of decision is smoking- who in their right mind would examine the non-existant “benefits” of smoking, contrasted with the damage it does to ones heart & lungs, and conclude smoking would be good? No, the bulk of smokers are exposed to it early, try it due to peer pressure, then become addicted and continue til the die or something happens to force them to quit. That’s a pretty good parallel with religion, IMOHO.

I imagine the temptation to view atheism as its own religion, or at least philosophy, is tempting. But it’s a temptation one should exist. Why should it have to have a “benefit” vs some religion? You don’t need to have a benefit to believe in nuclear fusion or Ohms law- both are generally accepted scientific facts, born out by experiementation & practical application. The ‘end user’ needn’t agonize over whether they are more emotionally satisfying than some fanciful metaphysical system of 'scientific laws"- it’s simply true or it’s not.

Still, in the spririt of the question there’s some validity to asking if atheism is more “practical” somehow than theism. Since atheism isn’t really a belief system, though, it’s more accurate to ask what other system will replace theism. And of course all the usual suspects willl line up: Marxism, humanism, utilitarianism, etc etc.

If you’re the type of person who really needs an ism to justify your existance, they’re worth looking into.

11

This seems similar to arguing that there must be some benefit to those who believe in extra-sensory perception, or else nobody would believe it. But there are, of course, beliefs people hold onto regardless of their benefit. I disagree that it must have a benefit. I read an article recently in Scientific American that argues it is a genetic defect, nothing more.

I’m hoping a valid comparison of a similar change in worldview would be when we went from believing that the earth was the center of the universe to the more accurate belief, that our earth revolves around the sun.

When this took place, a belief was changed. Of course, the implications of the change were extensive and opened tons of new doors, but we went from believing the earth was the middle of the universe, to it wasn’t. Similarly, we’d be going from believing there was a deity, to there not being one. The implications would once again be extensive, but the replacement views come automatically once the realization is made.

I just don’t see the purpose of creating an entirely new replacement worldview before ridding ourselves of an untrue fact in the first place. What’s the danger of first ridding our world of an inaccurate belief, and then letting a new worldview emerge based on this new enlightenment?

12

The problem with it is that whole ‘unprovable’ and ‘false’ part.

Science can show that the sun doesn’t rotate around the Earth. It can’t disprove God.

Atheism, itself, is a null-state. While it is a useful label in certain contexts (such as in a largely theistic society) but it still doesn’t tell us anything about the person at all. Is a buddhist atheist the same as a secular humanist atheist, the same as Huxley’s agnosticism, the same as a marxist atheist?

Clearly not. Atheism isn’t a philosophical system, but rather an aspect of a belief system. Since everyone has a belief system, you can’t just run around willy-nilly removing them without providing a different system in its place.

Think Durkheim. Social glue people. Religion does a dandy job of it. If anyone were to want to challenge religion (as thezeus does), then some alternate form of social glue needs to be in its place.

We didn’t replace a gaeacentric model of the universe with an acentric universe, after all. We replaced it first with a heliocentric model and went outwards from there. Now we have a point-where-big-bang-happened centric universe, but it hasn’t become a null-value.

13

That assumes that religion is currently serving as that glue. I see little evidence that it is. At best it’s one peice of the puzzle, but you don’t see the most religious nations behaving better than the least religious ones.

14

It isn’t about morality, but rather about creating a moral community. Rituals bind us and control us to an extreme extent. If it isn’t a man in the pulpit creating these rituals, it is a man on wall street.

Is that what we would want to base our society off of?

15

Why do we need metaphysics at all? I don’t understand you Xunzian, and I have no experience in metaphysics.

Dorky, what kind of a person goes from believing that they are meaningful, that they have a purpose, to believing that they are irrelevant and that the universe is based on random chance? Dawkins of course, and you; exceptional people. Exceptional people are exceptional because they are so few, and I think that we can agree that no average Joe Jesus would be able to make this leap. In preemptive response to your next comment, no, they will not go because atheism is more true than theism. There is no way to prove that, because you can’t look at a space where god should be and see whether he’s there or not.

When there is nothing to compare to, no data on which to base a belief, the belief is even more obviously chosen on pragmatic grounds, and right now, there is no pragmatic ground for believing in atheism.

Exactly, kingdaddy, though this is only a strike against atheism in its present state. I think atheism should hold people accountable, and is capable of doing so, but in this life.

16

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

I ain’t talkin’ 'bout no crystal healing powers. I’m talking about ontology and other very fundamental questions about what constitues reality and the universe.

Every system of thought has a metaphysical basis, even if they are unconcious or assumed. For example, a major metaphysical assumption of science is that the universe is ordered and actions are repeatable. I think this assumption makes sense because it is what I have experienced. But that is also assuming that my experience is valid and the reality that I am perceiving is in some way meaningful. It gets tricky and if you don’t think about it, it will bite you in the ass.

What is this:

and this:

and why?

17

They are both chairs. They are defined so because we can they can be sat on.

I have a system of teleology, and metaphysics. They’re just not very well formed right now.

18

So is a sofa a chair? What about my girlfriend?

19

No a sofa is a sofa because two people can sit on it. And your girlfriend is a girlfriend because sitting is not the only thing you can do with her.

20

A chair can be used to “put the smackdown” on people.

-Thirst