This short essay is by John Kubinski. John is an 18 year old student in his first year at the University of Virginia hoping start in a career in genetics and one day write popular science books. He aruges that there is a need to properly re-frame the atheist movement, so as to make it clear that the movement rests on philosophical principles and not belief in specific propositions.
The atheist movement is in need of a proper framing. The fight is not being waged over a proposition; it’s being waged over a mentality. What is being decried is not belief in what appears to be a false claim about reality, it’s about the way in which that false belief was arrived at.
It must be made clear that disbelief in God is not the central principle; the ideas surrounding the movement do not flow forth from this notion. But rather, disbelief in God flows as a natural consequence from critical inquiry and the use of reason. Adherence to rationality needs to become inextricably linked with the atheist ethos (it is on the inside, but this is not the case for most outsiders). We can no longer allow the debate to continue to be framed as a competition of mutually incompatible propositions, because that’s not ultimately what it is about. This clash consists of the use of reason and scepticism versus the surrender of the mind to faith. It is not creationism versus evolution. Just as it is not about the heliocentric model versus the geocentric model. And it’s not about the moral status of fertilized eggs. And it’s not about the rights of homosexuals. And we probably shouldn’t even say it’s about science versus religion, because this, once again, allows the debate to be misconstrued as a battle between a group of beliefs (scientific facts and religious claims.) In its deepest roots it’s about thinking and non-thinking; it’s about approaching the world and being ready to form arguments with no assumptions. It’s about forming a worldview from the facts up, not from predetermined conclusions down.
The incompatibility of science and religion isn’t something that inevitably “arises” as some say. The incompatibility is something that is. Before either one makes any sort of claim about reality, they are in direct opposition. Religion is not antithetical to science because there are disputes about the facts; the antithesis arises in how the facts are arrived at. Science is in a philosophical conflict with religion of the severest kind. A willingness to believe claims without evidence, and further to refuse reason the right to bear influence on your views, is just unacceptable. From square one, the epistemological groundwork religions lay down is a challenge to science. If by some miracle a religion had in its tenets a complete theory of electromagnetism, Darwinian evolution, plate tectonics and thermodynamics, it wouldn’t make a difference, because if belief in these propositions was arrived at via faith and not through examination of evidence and the application of reason, then science would still be at odds with this religion. Factual content is not the ultimate source of the conflict. It is the religious mindset, and the virtue of faith, which we wish to destroy. We don’t just want people to believe in scientific theories; we want them to think scientifically. If we don’t accomplish this type of systemic change, the content of our arguments will never matter, because arguments themselves won’t matter. The gravity of how essential this problem is cannot be overstated. It seems Martin Luther had a grasp of what was at stake when he stated this (perhaps the worst quote in human history):
“Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God.”
So let us frame the atheist project in a new way with improved clarity: We are not trying to change the memes people serve as hosts to, we are trying to change the memetic selecting agents that are responsible for how memes propagate. This is the real change we must fight for.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.
8 comments:
Quite right. Atheism is the destination, reason is the journey. But does that mean that we should prefer the term "rationalist" over "atheist"?
Well there has been much debate about what we should call ourselves. It's true that atheism does not encompass everything we stand for, and the additional point has been made that "atheist" is a rather stigmatized term in much of society.
I often do refer to myself as a rationalist or a freethinker, it's mainly a question of PR though.
I just feel uneasy when it is said that, "an atheist is simply someone who rejects belief in a deity," because while trivially true, that fails to capture the surrounding values that make this growing movement so important.
Great post John. I love line, "It’s about forming a worldview from the facts up, not from predetermined conclusions down". I couldn't agree more with that statement. The problem is that people view facts from the predetermined conclusions down because these shallow conclusions promise so much, and make hard questions easier to answer. Its become so common for people to manipulate reality to fit the way they want to live. That's why their are so many different christian associations that don't agree with each other. Anyways, I see what your saying here, and I think if we were to frame our claims in your suggested context, It would provide the non-believing community with a better image.
Great post John. It's a breath of fresh air to see a criticism of the atheist movement that is constructive, and isn't a case of "Argh! They're offending people, how dare they!"
I would probably have not said, as you did, that "the atheist movement needs a rethink," as I would say "this is the direction the atheist movement needs to move in now." Great post, though.
I think we should stick to the atheist label.
It simply dosen't make any sense to choose "rationalist" over "atheist". They mean different things altogether. Rationalism is not the sole property of atheists (though I believe it is more prominent among us). You can find many religious people who use reason to justify their faith, though these are a minority. That said, it is good that rationalism is increasingly being associated with atheism.
I agree, HairTonic: you just have to look at the philosophy of religion to find rational arguments constructed to try and prove God's existence.
If someone asks your view on the world one could just say, "I am a free-thinking atheist."
Post a Comment