There seems to be a concern among people that ‘new atheism’ or ‘the Freethought movement’ is currently being framed in the wrong fashion. In December last year, John Kubinski offered his thoughts on the matter (his essay can be found here). Kubinski focused on the need to alter a kind of memetic paradigm of the religious mind. Here, Eric Stockhausen, also using the concept of memes, advocates a stance taken by Darrel Ray in The God Virus. Hopefully these different approaches will spark readers to take up or disagree with one or both views. If you have a unique idea, why not send it in? Eric Stockhausen:
I study philosophy in my spare time, so before I even knew who the ‘Four Horsemen’ were, I had read and seen lectures of Dr. Dennett. He introduced me to the idea of memes and to Richard Dawkins; inventor of the concept. Though the layperson may not understand Dennett because of the jargon, there is a book by Dr. Darrel Ray called The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture, which gives a comprehensive view of memetics.
Ray treats religion as a disease which tries to propagate itself by traits it has evolved. These traits include: obsession with people’s sex lives, indoctrinating the young and those in crisis, adapting to the culture and putting itself before the safety and well-being of its host. For more specifics, I highly encourage people to listen to one of Ray’s lectures or book discussions.
Ray also suggests a better approach for the Freethought Movement towards religionists. A kind of grassroots activism. Religionists are infected by the God Virus in such a way that they can no longer think clearly or in their best interests. Displaying antagonism in debate can, for the moderately to seriously infected, strengthen their beliefs. They put on the armour of strong faith so to speak. Because of this, purely arguing against the irrationality of faith is not the most effective promoter of Freethought.
Ray suggests that the following will strengthen the Freethought community: allowing a more open discussion of taboo subjects (i.e. pre-marital sex), becoming an activist (i.e. protecting the separation of church and state), really listening to what religionists have to say (even comments of a theological nature), providing knowledge and tools for freethinking parents to raise their children and to create a community for ‘Recovering Religionists’.
Doing this should promote a positive image of freethinkers. With the examples that Ray presents and the current social trends of the movement, Freethought may soon have the power it deserves in mainstream America and perhaps globally.
3 comments:
I'm inclined to disagree with Ray's views here. The idea of setting up kind of ‘clinics’ for 'Recovering Religionists', if it is aimed to promote a friendly atheistic image, will surely only encourage the idea that atheists are patronising. I may vehemently disagree with 'religionists', but I treat them as intellectual equals and try to engage in serious debate. If someone is uneducated, that's a separate issue. I don't see how these ideas can really have the impact that Ray desires.
I understand your point of view. I am a little ambivalent on which method will prove more fruitful based on what I have read. As a nephyte, I do not have as much firsthand knowledge as the frontlines. More debate within the freethought community would provide this peer review process necessary to keeping the movement focused. There is a danger that in any movement of radicals taking a violent response to adversity, though seculars strongly tend to be non-violent. I would like to see a good rebuttal essay with a suggestion of how the movement should evolve. Should supersition be actively stomped out? How should we offend religious theists? What does debating do when most arguments against gods are very old?
I personally think the debating sharpens our rational faculties, creates a clearer ground for which one stands, and, most of all, gives us a voice. Debate all you can do, within ethical and practical limits of course. My only problem is, I do not want people to become the enemy. It might seem like a weak position, but there is an inherent danger in the "us and them" view.
Well, I might not haved said anything in this comment that means anything, but I would be very happy to have my peers provide me their research and POVs.
Aren't we just so up against it when a very powerful meme, the idea that religion is always, will always be, has always been, a Good Thing, is plonked before our eyes daily by government? I'm thinking of the UK government, which (and I've just blogged on this on Pink Triangle) is to appoint a coven of 13 "faith advisers" (I do so hate that word "faith") to pontificate on all kinds of things, including – wait for it! – social justice and climate change. You can imagine the sort of social justice for, say, gay people and women that would come from the Muslim on the panel, or a Catholic, can't you? And climate change? Don't you go to a climatologist for such advice? Parenting is another: you go to you mother, or to an expert (better a woman, because in general men are less sensitive, with notable exceptions). I despair that our taxpayers' dosh is being spent on this nonsense when hospitals are crying out for staff, schools for decent facilities, and people in general for things in general. I despair, I really do.
Post a Comment