I believe in Darwinism and evolution and biology. I believe in atheism. I believe you get one shot; the rest is dust. That’s my creed, and I’ve decided not to even bother defending it any more.
A lot of ideas have been simmering away under this one.
Like the survey that found Americans trust atheists less than they trust homosexuals and Muslims. “Many Americans seem to believe some kind of religious faith is central to being a good American and a good person,†said the study’s leader.
Like the fuss kicked up by Dan Dennett’s book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, to which I have no intention of linking exhaustively, Lance Mannion having already done so to my total satisfaction.
Like the whole benighted mess created by the latest IDiot manifestations.
But it all came together as I listened to a podcast by Rodney Stark, a sociologist of religion. In The Market Approach to Understanding Religion Stark takes what was, to me, a new and eye-opening approach. Instead of viewing religion as making good some defect in human construction, Stark (like Dennett) seems to take as given that people want to believe something and then, answering a different “why?†than Dennett, says that the specifics of why they believe what they believe owe more to the individual marketing strategies of different religions than to anything inherent in a specific belief system. (There’s no way I am going to summarize more than that. I simply urge you to listen.)
This was the first in a series of four lectures, and I look forward to the others, but even on the basis of this introduction I’m sold on the idea. It does, however, make mincemeat of my long-held and long-cherished belief that if only people had access to all the facts they would come to the only sensible conclusion and get on with their lives.
They don’t need facts. They need a sales pitch. And neither Darwinism nor atheism has one fit for the average yearner. Richard Dawkins tried, with his “Brights,†to give some coherence to this view of life, although personally I take a Marxist (G., not K.) view of membership in any club for which I am patently eligible.
Perhaps Pastafarianism is a better gauge. For a while there it was probably the fastest-growing faith of all time. I would guess though that satire is as ineffective as smugness in combatting allofaiths.
So, what to do? Create an insanely great sales pitch for atheism? It isn’t going to happen. What the Brights call “a naturalistic worldview†will always be a minority pursuit, enjoying a small market share among an enlightened elite (rather like the Mac thing). Stark’s lecture helped me to understand that.
I’m going to abandon those who have bought the patter of other religions to their fate. I reserve the right to mock them mercilessly and to point out their foolishness, should I care to. But I’m not even going to try to save them from their stupidity and I’m not going to tiptoe around their sensibilities just because they are faith based.
And I’m not going to deny my faith.
The difficulty, of course, is that leaves the towelheads and god-botherers in charge, and their mayhem doesn’t really care what I believe. I don’t believe what they believe, and that’s good enough for them.
(If all this is tired and old hat, forgive me and explain why; it excited me, obviously, and I was surprised I had never come across similar ideas.)
Some other sources of fun:
Add your own comment
Sigh.
I’m with you.
Thanks for those links by the way.
My pleasure.
My family is full of believers. My friends are generally more casual about matters of faith. One friend, however, recently remarried. His family was involved in a very controlling Christian sect when he was young (a couple of his sisters still are) and he rebelled against it very strongly. His new wife is a conventional believing Christian, very sweet but more than casually devout. Now my friend finds himself attending church services and his little boy is going to Sunday school. He remains casual about it all, but the brainwashing may be taking with the young son.
As a family friend who wants to stay on good terms with everyone, I avoid rolling my eyes or making funny faces when the wife says “We can pray about it” or “If it’s God’s will.” And she doesn’t say it all that often, either, which makes it easier. It’s much more difficult, however, when the six-year-old says to me, “Did you know God made the sun?” Oh, boy! Tongue-biting time. I say stuff like, “Oh, really?” and leave it at that.
I swear my head is going to explode one of these days.
Zeno
Thanks for dropping by. I’m no tongue biter myself, but I’m not sure I’d know what to do with a six-year old. What puzzles me is how to legitimate my intolerance of intolerance. I wouldn’t want to alienate the child’s parents, but nor would I want to stand idly by. It is a dilemna.
Zeno, Jeremy,
When opportunities present themselves, as in the case with another person’s six-year-old child, it is absolutely imperative to let the child know that you think differently. Remember, a mind truly is a terrible thing to waste. One needn’t be crass or insulting to mom and dad, but a gentle, factual, unprovocative, and yet scientifically accurate, response to the youngster about the nature of our own star, the sun, and its many relatives, might pique the youthful curiosity far more than the inane religious overtures ever could. It might be the only timely substantive feedback the child receives on the topic. Share an experience with the family of visiting an observatory, or science museum. This has the added benefit of allowing you to avoid what might be a sticky situation, by introducing the messenger instead of being the messenger.
We live in a world with a million gnarly problems, none of which religious affiliation is equipped to solve or even deal with to the greater benefit of mankind. Childhood is the time to prepare the mind for the real problems that that child and his or her generational comrades will encounter. No one would expect that a child could turn out to be much of musician if we told them lies like “quarter notes are from the devil” or “all music in 3/4 time is evil.” In a similar vein then, how is it that we really expect to prepare children for the future while vilifying, denigrating, and degrading science – literally the only tool that will equip them confront and adequately address the myriad difficulties they will face. Many of the more intractable challenges will be ones which we will have made and left to them, while, at the same time, giving them religion instead of reason, thus leaving them utterly unprepared to take care of themselves, their children and the rest of mankind in an increasingly human hostile world.
So, everybody, please don’t let those learning moments slip by unrealized. Get in a word for reason, for science, for what may be the only hope for a stable, safe, healthy, happy future for humanity.
You’re right Russ. But as I said, I’m not sure how to do it. Thankfully, perhaps, the opportunity has not yet presented itself.
Glad you got something out of the lecture. The second in the Stark series is also on the website, at: http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=345&Itemid=20
Enjoy.
Add your own comment