(Part 1 of a series of blog posts)

http://blog.case.edu/singham/

For some time now I have had this feeling that the struggle between atheism and religion is over and atheism has won. I believe a tipping point has been reached in which religion has begun an inexorable slide towards oblivion. Not total oblivion, of course. There will always be pockets of people who feel the need for belief in some supernatural being. But sooner rather than later, perhaps within two generations, religious people will not be the majority that they have been up to now but will consist of small scattered sects like the Amish, viewed with amused indulgence for their devotion to maintaining a bygone lifestyle. This will seem counter-intuitive when viewed with the public religiosity we see all around us, especially in the US and the next series of posts will flesh out why I think this is the case.

Readers of this blog are aware of the current debate between so-called new (or unapologetic) atheists (some of whom refer to themselves jokingly as 'gnu atheists') and accommodationists. The former group (of which I am a member) feels that belief in gods and the supernatural are unsupported by evidence and that at a fundamental level religion is incompatible with science and should be treated in much the same way that we treat other myths and superstitions like unicorns and fairies and Santa Claus, beliefs that we might indulge in children but which no self-respecting adult would admit to. The new atheists think that one of the reasons that beliefs in gods survive is because religion has created a protective cocoon around it and made it a social taboo for people to point out that it has no credibility.

These views have ruffled the feathers of some and there has been some pushback. We are told that we must respect the sincerely held beliefs of religious people and not offend them by asking awkward questions as to why religious people believe what they do or pointing out all the logical and evidentiary contradictions. It is never made clear why we should give religion this special privilege that is not extended to other sincerely held beliefs concerning politics or history or human behavior. In every area of knowledge other than religion, shining the bright light of reason and science on it is seen as desirable, a way of separating truth from falsehood and the credible from the absurd.

Accommodationists, on the other hand, consist of people (some of whom are self-proclaimed atheists) who think that science and religion are either compatible or that if we do not think so, we still should not violate the taboo of pointing out the incompatibilities. The compatibility argument, when probed, eventually comes down to saying that there are areas of knowledge that science does not and cannot investigate and thus god can act in that sphere and hence religion has dominion over that area of knowledge. Of course, the claim that some area is outside the reach of science is an old one that has been refuted repeatedly as formerly inexplicable phenomena have been subsequently shown to be explainable by science. There is no reason to think that the currently alleged designated areas of inexplicability (the origin of the universe and of life) are any more immune to scientific encroachment than the behavior of the solar system and the diversity of life, former candidates for inexplicability subsequently explained by Newtonian mechanics and Darwinian natural selection.

An alternative form of this accommodationist argument is that issues such as morality and ethics and some vaguely defined spirituality are intangibles that do not have the material basis that is amenable to scientific investigation and that we must look to religion as the source of such values. One counter to this is that it is not at all clear that such things do not have a material basis. After all, all thoughts and behavior are governed by decisions of the brain which does have a material basis. In fact, there is a huge field of evolutionary biology and psychology directed towards understanding just how our behaviors evolved.

The other counter is that it is not self-evident why, even if we concede for the sake of argument that science cannot investigate these claims, these areas of knowledge should be ceded to religion. Why should only religion be credentialed to say what is and is not moral and ethical behavior? Why not psychology or sociology or anthropology or literature? Why should we infer our moral values from the Bible (to choose one source of religious values) instead of the works of William Shakespeare or Leo Tolstoy or Rabindranath Tagore or Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Confucius? The only reason to do so is if we think the Bible (or the Koran or equivalent other religious text) has been shown to be true. The fact that it has not been shown to be true and in fact is riddled with claims that we know to be flat-out false means that there is no reason to give it preferred status. Religion has not earned the right to claim default status of truth for those areas of knowledge that are supposedly outside the realm of science.

I think the fact that having your own beliefs is seen as a competition with winners and losers is a sad reflection of the human race as a whole.

Posted by maypost I think the fact that having your own beliefs is seen as a competition with winners and losers is a sad reflection of the human race as a whole.

100% agree. when i first saw this i was thinking, i didnt know there was a contest. though perhaps if each major religion set up a twitter we could see who gets the most followers. then we can have a real contest for all the souls.

Um, if atheist don't believe in anything, then why do they spend so much time trying to convert others to their belief that there is nothing?

Human nature.

Everyone think everyone should think exactly like them...

Boring, huh?

Posted by maypost Human nature. Everyone think everyone should think exactly like them... Boring, huh?

Very. I have always thought of it as the "Everyone should look different on the outside, but be exactly alike on the inside, then we would have perfect diversity" mindset certain people have. Folks are different, thats not a bad thing. Keeps ya on your toes.

In places it is a contest like my neighbor Kansas where they want to teach creationism in schools and that the world is only 6000 years old.

And if you saw the news today a lawmaker in South Dakota introduced a bill to call the murder of abortion providers justifiable homicide.

So it is a contest because religious zealots won't be happy until they control everything.

Posted by Esoterik In places it is a contest like my neighbor Kansas where they want to teach creationism in schools and that the world is only 6000 years old. And if you saw the news today a lawmaker in South Dakota introduced a bill to call the murder of abortion providers justifiable homicide. So it is a contest because religious zealots won't be happy until they control everything.

I don't think you could call the murder of abortion providers justifiable homicide, but you could call not life threating, non victim abortions homicide pretty easily.

Just sayin..

Posted by jeepdave Um, if atheist don't believe in anything, then why do they spend so much time trying to convert others to their belief that there is nothing?

because your collective stupidity is a)fucking up the human race and b)hard to deal with because you're all like someone that just pissed their pants and don't realize it. You all believe in some fucked up fairy tale and then expect others to believe it on faith when there isn't a single shred of evidence. The case for god is so fucking thin, you couldn't ever win in a court of law.


That blunt enough for you?

Posted by jeepdave Um, if atheist don't believe in anything, then why do they spend so much time trying to convert others to their belief that there is nothing?

I wouldn't say atheists don't "believe in" anything. I think it's more that atheists don't accept things on faith, and that goes for anything, not just god(s). For me, I guess you could say I "believe in" democracy, but that's only because I studied it and have seen firsthand that it works. I don't believe in it because Rachel Maddow or Noam Chomsky told me so.

I think the fact that having your own beliefs is seen as a competition with winners and losers is a sad reflection of the human race as a whole.

But I think that's the nature of religious belief. Every religion believes it's the one true faith and that the others are false, or at least different paths to the same destination. I also think that true of any belief. No one says "What I believe is stupid, but it's mine and I'm sticking to it!" Also, pretty much every religion wants its followers to gain converts. Christianity especially. There was one sect (I forget the name) that totally forbade sex, even for procreation, (I think my wife is a member of that one ) and relied strictly on converts to fill their ranks. They died out, unsurprisingly.

Judaism isn't real big on conversion, but that's because it's tied more to ethnicity than strictly to beliefs.

because your collective stupidity ... in a court of law.

Sam, you know I'm on your side, but statements like that don't really add to the conversation.

Posted by splumer Sam, you know I'm on your side, but statements like that don't really add to the conversation.

at this point, i don't give a shit. i think they're fucking nuts.
all of you people that think that there is a god are nuts. you're loons.
and to be completely frank, i don't give a fuck if you like it or not.

you offer up a logical, well thought out discussion and you still can't tell these people anything.

piss on it. you want irrationality, i'll give you irrationality.

because your collective stupidity is a) A primary reason behind the abolition of slavery b) The only reason for a brief period the mentally ill got decent care and were treated as equal before science decided they were less than human again.

Stupid or not religion was a major factor is social reforms and shaped our views of equality and the decent treatment of people and it continues to do retarded amounts of charity work


That blunt enough for you?

Posted by Soldat because your collective stupidity is a) A primary reason behind the abolition of slavery b) The only reason for a brief period the mentally ill got decent care and were treated as equal before science decided they were less than human again. Stupid or not religion was a major factor is social reforms and shaped our views of equality and the decent treatment of people and it continues to do retarded amounts of charity work That blunt enough for you?

keep on believin... go right the fuck ahead.
yeah, religion has such a grand track record for decent treatment of people and equality.
the only thing that's more fucked up than organized religion is government; both have such fine records on the humanitarian front.

If you got rid of religion right now what would you have tomorrow?

A shit load of homeless people starving to death.

Like it or not people belief in their invisible friend ended slavery and took mental patients out of the prison and the poorhouse briefly before society threw them right back in. And the creation of public schools.

People might do some fucked up stuff in the name of religion, but a shit load more do some great things in its name.

So bitch about the Crusades from 1000 years ago or the murder of an abortion doctor some nut killed all you want. Its just pointless fapping.

Posted by Soldat Its just pointless fapping.

Yup. That's our point.



Oh wait... You weren't talking about religion there?

Posted by MutantMandias Yup. That's our point. Oh wait... You weren't talking about religion there?

BA ZING!

So clever, but with no substance.

Posted by Soldat If you got rid of religion right now what would you have tomorrow? A shit load of homeless people starving to death.

We got that shit right now and most of you, according to your (not as in your you, but a generic blanket 'your') posts in the politics board, are just fucking okey dokey with that. People sink or swim on their own and shouldn't get help. Right? fucking right????

Like it or not people belief in their invisible friend ended slavery and took mental patients out of the prison and the poorhouse briefly before society threw them right back in. And the creation of public schools.

wasn't it religion, christianity primarily, that ENDORSED slavery? and what are you talking about? Due to weird laws inspired by, again christianity, people were arrested and committed with no legal grounds.

People might do some fucked up stuff in the name of religion,

ding ding ding... UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...but a shit load more do some great things in its name.

Like who?

So bitch about the Crusades from 1000 years ago or the murder of an abortion doctor some nut killed all you want. Its just pointless fapping.

i don't have to... it's all been said before and there is no point in arguing this dead horse.

there is no god

i'll say this again, if there is a god and a heaven, and I get to those legendary pearly gates, i'm going to kick him/it/her in their divine ballsack. if there is a god, i wouldn't trust the fucker with a drive thru job at mcdonalds. i think for a deity, and I think that Carlin said it best, humanity has aimed pretty low. It's like you get asked "don't you want to be saved?"
why? and spend eternity with you fucking weirdos? I'd rather have my ballbag slammed in a car door for all eternity.

lets just say that you nutballs are right and there is a god (which there isn't, but i love what if's) and whatever it was stopped by the house here and said, "scott i am god. you should believe in me or else..."
He'd/it/she'd get punched in the face and then bludgeoned back on to whatever ghetto ethereal plain it came from.
I don't need to believe, no do i want to believe in this BULLSHIT. religion is like an informercial... it's for the, crazies, the insomniacs and the suckers.

and then on the other side of the coin, we get called atheists, like it's a religion or something. I like to think of myself as a free-thinking example of the last gasp of humanity on this dying ball... imagine that, when aliens find our remains and shit in 1000 years, they're going to think, 'what a fat bunch of idiots.' and leave it at that.

I doubt that a trailer park full of velvet jesus paintings is ever going to rank up there with the pyramids.

Posted by Soldat So clever, but with no substance.

Right, just like the idea of a God.


BA-ZINGARINGADING!

Posted by Soldat If you got rid of religion right now what would you have tomorrow? A shit load of homeless people starving to death. Like it or not people belief in their invisible friend ended slavery and took mental patients out of the prison and the poorhouse briefly before society threw them right back in. And the creation of public schools. People might do some fucked up stuff in the name of religion, but a shit load more do some great things in its name. So bitch about the Crusades from 1000 years ago or the murder of an abortion doctor some nut killed all you want. Its just pointless fapping.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that churches do good things in their communities. The church we have our scout meetings at, for example, does a "community meal" where they serve dinner to poor folks. Our troop helps out at it. But one doesn't need religion to do good things, and I would argue that a sincere belief that your religion and your holy book is infallible is a recipe for disaster. And I don't think you need to be a fanatic to believe your holy book is infallible.

I don't want to beat the god/no god point to death, so I'm going to leave it there.

So I have a question.

Whats the difference between christians or other faiths saying you're wrong, fucking retarded, a fool, a moron and etc etc etc for not being a member of their faith and people who are not members of a religion saying you're wrong, fucking retarded, a fool, a moron and etc etc etc for not subscribing to their beliefs?