The only thing I can think of is that he is arguing that the continued Atheist movement pushed out Christianity and allowed Islam to take hold. Ridiculous, but so are his other claims
He seems to be influenced by Jordan Peterson, who argues for the importance of religion in terms of culture and morality. This guy did so using more dumbed down and inflammatory rhetoric, probably as a strategy to get more youtube views, but I sort of relate to what he is saying as an Atheist.
I was thinking of creating a "Why I believe Atheism is a religion" thread but since this thread is here I will just present my argument here: Basically, the common counter point that Atheists invoke is that Atheism is simply a stance on a single question. Which, to be fair, it is. But just like any other word, I feel that Atheism can have multiple defintions which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
So I think of it in terms of little a "atheism" meaning the simple stance that there is no god, which is a stance that in addition to what we would consider your typical Atheist can also be held by Buddhists, secular Jews, you name it. Where as capital A "Atheism" is the movement/ideology that has basically been generation in direct response primarily to portions of western civilization becoming disillusioned with Christianity and religion in general.
I don't know the exact history/roots of this movement in any great detail, but I do feel that in it's modern form, most Atheists share a similar set of beliefs and values. We share a metaphysics rooted in scientific naturalism, a morality rooted largely in secular humanism, and as mentioned in the video it would seem that a large portion of the Atheist community also share ideas or dogmas such as that religion is inherently bad or that humanity would be better off without it.
As such, Harris, Dawkins & co are basically preaching a vision of what could "make the world a better place" based on people adhering to this particular POV of reality, metaphysics, and morality.
That, to me, sounds like a religion. And I think the primary reason Atheists will always reject this is because in their religious ethos, "religion" is a bad word almost akin to "Satan" or "evil." Or more bluntly, akin to "superstition" or "delusion." Which is essentially the Atheist's version of a nefarious force that virtually every religion has as a warning of some of the hazards of human thought and existence.
An interesting take on it. I don't disagree with her for the most part. I will say, in my experience, that the gay community did have a harder time coming out than Atheists did. People will forget your Atheist, but nobody forgets that your gay.
Also, she brings up the point that people assume that Atheists must be immoral because we have no doctrine to guide us which is my biggest irritation with how we are portrayed. It has been hammered a few times so there is no need to elaborate. I do think mistrust of Atheists would diminish greatly if the Religious who hold that view could realize that you can be moral without scripture.
Honestly, I'm pretty lucky in the fact that my Mother and my Grandparents (the only people whose opinions of me mattered), accepted it without harsh judgement. They believed that I'm going to Hell, but didn't think any less of me which is good. They said they would pray for me, and I appreciate the sentiment.
__________________
Last edited by socool8520 on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 11:50 PM
Yes, but it would seem that in an effort the fill the void that religion held for most people, we create a new religion based on a new set of ideals, principles and metaphysics.
As for being disillusioned with religion in general rather than one specifically, I would say in most cases it starts with whatever religion you were born into and then from there you build upon that to become adverse to the very concept of religion. Which is, in it's own right, a sort of dogmatic response that is very emblematic of all religions. "They've all got it wrong, now HERE's the right way to look at it." Sound familiar?
Sure, I guess if you put it loosely, it would be a form of religion. A basic moral guidelines and science mixed together. I don't think that Atheists are as rigid as some Religions require though. From one Atheist to the next, you may get varied levels of what is moral as their is technically no Atheist bible so to speak.
I don't think it's right to say that atheists have dogma (more on that later)... It is quite clearly demonstrated that humanity would be better off without faith-based religion. Faith-based being the operative word there: religions that require a belief in unsupported claims about the universe and beyond. It's quite well supported in Sam Harris' book The End of Faith, so it's not really dogma to say it because there is a great deal of evidence to support the claim. Throughout history unsupported dogmas have caused great suffering and harm.
Wanting to make the world a better place is not the definition of a religion. Hell, Christians seem to want to make this world worse, so as to get to the next, glorious and perfect life. Same with Muslims, etc. It seems to me that wanting to improve existence for as many people and living things as possible should be the goal of any existence. Religion or not. But ironically our main religions are not directed toward that purpose. Atheism and science is a much better approach for improving this world, this existence. Advances in science, technology, understanding of health has greatly improved life. I'm sure I don't need to point out examples..
You can define religion however you want so as to make atheism a religion. But in the sense that religions require followers, "you must believe this." There is nothing dogmatic or religious in that sense required by atheism. Nothing is beyond questioning. You can even question whether or not there is NO god in atheism. It's sort of like freedom of thought and speech. Nothing is taboo. You can even think to accuse atheism of being a religion! I will likely argue against such a claim, but you are certainly allowed to question it!
Point is: that's not religion. Religion is very much about not questioning dogmas. Therefore atheism is quite inherently undogmatic, as is science. Science is open to the possibility of a god, but there just isn't data to support it... yet. Highly suspicious Holy Books don't count.
admittedly I haven't actually read that book, though I am fairly familiar with Sam Harris's arguments in general. But to respond to you personally, the fact that religion causes harm is not necessarily evidence in favor of the idea that the world would be better off without it. You can easily find evidence that science and technological advancement causes harm as well. In order to conclude that the world would be better off without it, you would have to demonstrate that it has a net negative impact (in other words, that whatever harm is causes outweighs any other positive or functional roles it inherits in the current order.)
It's not the definition, but to me it is part of what a religion is all about. For example, Buddhism often is argued as potentially not a religion because it has no necessary deity or creator etc, but I feel that Buddhism is a religion because it preaches essentially what a person can or should do to attain some higher state of being. It is essentially a path towards something better, through a fundamentally different way of approaching the conditions of existence. This, to me, is true of virtually any religion you can name. Atheism included. And that is why I emphasized the visionary message the new Atheists are preaching about a world without religion.
Religions don't always require a strict set of beliefs. Often, they are more a description of a certain set of beliefs. Sometimes, they do fall into the habit of enforcing dogmas. But that is not a ubiquitous quality of all religion.
Yes, planes crash, technology can malfunction and wear-out. But religion causes harm and suffering as a direct result of its core beliefs. That's a big difference.
Islam:
Core belief: die in defense of Islam against infidels and get Paradise/virgins - do I need to mention the result here?
Christianity:
Core belief: soul enters zygote at moment of conception - stem cell research impeded potentially preventing the cures for all sorts of diseases and conditions
I really don't think that that is necessary to prove that the world would be better off without unsubstantiated and irrational beliefs. You just have to show that it has and is still causing suffering and impeding rationality and scientific progress. And Sam Harris' book does that extremely elaborately.
I don't even think it's part of the definition of religion...
Nothing inherent in religion guarantees that it will try to make the world a better place. And in fact I think the opposite is true (as I stated before).
Again, you're re-defining religion in such a way as to include Buddhism and atheism. Buddhism is a practice. It doesn't really require any unsubstantiated beliefs to practice it. If Buddhism is a religion then so is going to work to make money so you can pay your mortgage and bills. It's a practice, not a set of unsubstantiated claims, beliefs, and dogmas that one must take on to be a part of the club.
Feel free to provide examples. Buddhism is one, but again, in that respect I don't consider it a religion in the same sense as most others. Dogmas are a pretty big part of religions. If you started questioning whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin, died, rose again, etc then I think you'd quickly find a foot contacting your ass and you would be on the church steps. Same with Muhammad ascending to heaven on his horse and whether or not infidels are the enemy... heh.
I'm glad you're questioning these sorts of things, because it really is interesting to think about. But I'm puzzled why you would defend religion so much as an atheist. Sure, if you deny that certain religions have dangerous dogmas, then they seem relatively harmless. But to the extent that religions make shit up about the nature of the universe without substantial evidence they are dangerous.
It's beyond planes crashing and technology failing. Take the atom bomb. There is both an upside and a downside to the pragmatic effects of technological advancement, was my point. But in order to judge whether technological advancement is on the whole a good thing or a bad thing, you have to compare the pros and cons and weigh them against each other. Just like with anything else, including religion.
Well this seems like a somewhat irrational claim, to me. In order to prove that it is a net negative you would have to prove it does more harm than good.
The typical Atheist approach (famously put forth by Hitchens) is to suggest that if there is anything negative caused specifically by a religious belief, then that is proof that religion is negative. Presumably because anything positive that might come out of it can be rationalized away as something that could've been achieved without religion.
This is a sort of double standard and IMO an example of sloppy and dogmatic reasoning that is informed more by one's ideology than by clear, objective thought and reasoning.
And there we disagree. You can cite the dictionary definition of religion as proof otherwise, but dictionary definitions will vary and ultimately religion is a somewhat complex and tricky phenomena to try to define. I personally think the definition you posted is incomplete.
I think that generally a religion will preach some set of beliefs, rituals and/or practices that are aimed at achieving something better than what the external world without that religion tends to offer.
What qualifies as "something better" is really a subjective distinction: you don't think the Christian or Islamic visions of a better world are actually better. But they do. And they presumably also don't think the Atheist vision of a world without religion is actually an improvement or better world, either. That really proves nothing other than the idea that different religions and ideologies have different priorities and ideas about what kind of Utopian vision they are after.
For Buddhists and religions that are more heavily based in meditation, this "better world" they seek is largely internal rather than external. Through meditation they seek enlightenment which essentially (as far as I know) is just seen as a better way of dealing with the conditions of consciousness and suffering. For the Jews, it was very much about seeking favor from Yahweh in an attempt to actually improve the external conditions of the Israelite society. Very different priorities, and very different approaches. But both are essentially just reactions to the basic hazards of human existence.
I'm not just trying to redefine it to include those practices. I'm trying to offer up what I believe is intuitively the best definition of the phenomena. Buddhism has long been considered a religion, and I think it's mostly recently that the debates over Atheism vs religion have sought to set Buddhism and other eastern practices into a potentially different category. But to my eye that is almost taking a sort of Abraham-centric view of what religion actually means.
That's just the thing... there have been versions of Christianity that do vary with regard to what they believe about those aspects of the mythology from day 1(the divinity/nature of Christ especially). They have simply been repressed and (pretty effectively) silenced by the Church and other religious zealots. So in many cases, dogmas are a way of basically "purging" the religion of dissent. But who am I or anyone else to say that Jehovas witnesses, Gnostics, etc. aren't real Christians? By doing so we are essentially buying into the Christian dogmas that we are supposedly holding in contempt.
I don't necessarily think that religions are harmless. I think that making any blanket statement about religion as a general phenomenon is ultimately no different than making a blanket statement about political ideology as a whole.
As for "why would an Atheist take on this stance?" I dunno, maybe I just like stirring the pot but I also have grown somewhat tired of the holier-than-thou Atheism that is so prevalent online.
Also, I'm just sort of disillusioned/bored with Atheism at this point. I feel like I have sort of a desire to just go back to being a Catholic. That's what I was raised as, though very loosely. But I don't want to buy into any of the dogmas or take the mythology literally, I just like the ritualistic and cultural aspects of the church. I feel a sort of connection with my ancestors whenever I go to a Catholic church. This is on aspect of religion that Atheism is truly lacking IMO. But the thing that stops me from joining is some combination of laziness and not wanting to be associated with the pedo mafia.
It could be achieved without religion, unless of course you think that basic morality can only be found in Religion, which I would disagree with. If you take away the basic morality (the only good part imo) of Religion, what real positives do you get? All you have left is a somewhat lazy answer for what happens when you die, ridiculous cultural bias disguised as holy ways to live, and segregation (you don't believe this, you're not one of us type of deal). The charity and goodwill towards man is easily achievable without religion. I don't think that is a double standard as Atheism does not require any of those things, and better still, it doesn't demand it.
Holier than thou to describe Atheists is very funny. lol
If that's how you feel about Atheism, than it seems to me that you were just having a crisis of faith. not saying that's what's going on since I don't know you personally. I don't know how you get bored with a belief. Either you have come to the conclusion that you like the cultural aspect of religion and the other reasons you stated or you don't. For me, you can literally get that same sense of connection along several other avenues. My Grandfather loved music. i feel connected to him whenever I hear a song we used to listen to together. I have forums like this or the people around me to feel connected if I so choose. Connection is not exclusive to Religion.
My point is that to speak of religion a negative thing in general, to my eye the only fair approach is to weigh the actual pragmatic effect that it has on the world. And the closest we can get to doing that is to try to weigh the good things that come out of it vs the bad things that come out of it.
Arguing that people can do good things without religion does not negate the good things that many people do specifically because of their religion. As such, it's basically irrelevant to the equation. You could also point to many of the bad shit that is done in the name of religion and say, "well, that sort of thing can still happen without religion." This hypothetical proposition does not change that something bad was done in the name of religion.
So if you would like to argue about the karmic impact of something as broad as "religion," you have to include both the good and the bad or else you are simply tilting the scales so that you will arrive at the foregone conclusion you were determined to arrive at.
It's really not, lol. It's ironic given the term's religious connotations, but it's not at all uncommon or hard to imagine IMO. I would say if I had to wager an estimate, my experience with online Atheists puts at least 50% of them into that category, and that's being generous (inb4 someone comes in and lectures me on anecdotal evidence).
Eh.. different strokes. I can get bored of anything.
But I do like the cultural aspects just maybe not enough to join. Or I haven't decided. The thing is I believe what I believe so if I did join I'd be like a secular Catholic. Like I don't believe in any of the supernatural aspects. So I would feel like sort of a phony. That's another reason I am reluctant to do that.
I sorta get what you mean about music etc but part of what I like about the church seems different from just going to some concert etc. The concert would probably be more intense, tbh. The church just has a sort of ancient vibe to it and all the symbolism and occult looking imagery just speaks to me and makes me feel like a sort of tourist in an ancient tradition that stretches back thousands of years. There's just something uniquely transcendent about that to me.
But I feel the same way about some of the pagan traditions and monuments. And I dunno if you're familiar with Jordan Peterson or not, but I do think there might be something to his idea of the archetypal hero that virtually all religious traditions take on and which in more modern and secular context takes the form of comic book heroes and rock stars. So in a way yea we always do try to find an outlet for this kind of thinking/experience.
I clearly see the good and bad of religion. i'm for religous freedom if you didn't know. What I'm saying is why would you need something that does have negatives that are directly contributed to it over something where you could have the positives and not the negatives? If there was a diet plan that said it would help you lose weight by eating better and then another plan that said you need to eat better but also gave you a bunch of unnecessary rules, which one would you pick?
You can't negate the good, but you also can't negate the bad. Basic morality can cover the good of Religion without the negatives I provided previously. To me, that logically seems better.
Yes, you could point out that that stuff could be done without religion, but the point is is that that stuff has been done directly because of Religion. If you cut out the us vs them mentality of Religion, it would cut back on some of the mindless violence in the world? How is that a bad thing, and is Religion truly that important that you shouldn't? At least revise it.