• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The ethics of militant and state atheism

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I want to ask Atheists here on their opinion regarding as to whether Atheists can and should actively seek to eliminate religious belief from public and private life.

At the moment, I'm looking at the history of communism and am undecided on the issue as the history speaks for itself. My personal opinion is that I am unsure whether religion is compatible with freedom, and consequently suspect religion is incompatible with humanism. On the one hand atheism is part of scientific and moral progress towards greater freedom, whilst on the other it violates long-standing ethical conceptions.

State Atheism, and to a lesser extent militant atheism, self-evidently has some serious human rights implications as it means that individuals lose their "freedom of religion" and that also impacts "freedom of thought" indirectly by the use of state power. Yet at the same time, a lot of our conception of ethics are also derived from religious sources, even in secular systems. So this walks straight into a potentially nihilistic and relativistic realm of thought, which can get pretty ugly.

There is also a question as whether an Atheist has the right to talk someone out of their beliefs as Atheists cannot be equal to religious people without it, given how often religion takes on an evangelical form whereas atheists are typically individualists. So I'm going to make a distinction between this on an individual level (trying to talk someone out of religion) and on a social level, because they latter will almost certainly imply using the state to achieve an atheist society.

i) can religion be eliminated in society as a whole?

ii) should an atheist try to talk a person out of their religious beliefs?

iii) should atheists use politics and the state as a way to promote atheism and/or eliminate religion?

I'm not sure on this issue given it's sensitive nature, so all perspectives are welcome.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
i) can religion be eliminated in society as a whole?
Probably not, and certainly as a Humanist I have no requirement for it to be eliminated. What I do object to is public policy being influenced by religious dogma.

ii) should an atheist try to talk a person out of their religious beliefs?
No, but I will argue my atheism in any discussion with a person of faith.

iii) should atheists use politics and the state as a way to promote atheism and/or eliminate religion?
Again the answer is "no, but..."
The BUT being that secularism should be the way that governments govern. People may practice any religion they like but not be afforded religious exemptions. E.g. in the UK today there is a big discussion about sex education in schools (why in 2015???) the main anti lobby is religiously driven, parents and pupils overwhelmingly want good age appropriate sex education. If your child is attending a school funded by the state then your child will receive appropriate sex education.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I want to ask Atheists here on their opinion regarding as to whether Atheists can and should actively seek to eliminate religious belief from public and private life.
To eliminate religion is oppression. If I counsel someone to join us heathens in disbelief, this is fine. But to have government coerce people is unacceptable. It's been tried, & religion just won't go away. Government seems the more dangerous of the two.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
i) can religion be eliminated in society as a whole?

That would seem very unlikely to me given the science which strongly suggests that humans by our very nature tend towards certain forms of religiosity. You might as well ask, "Can Homo sapiens be eliminated from society as a whole?"

ii) should an atheist try to talk a person out of their religious beliefs?

I see no reason to prevent or criminalize such behavior.

iii) should atheists use politics and the state as a way to promote atheism and/or eliminate religion?

Absolutely not. The very idea is heinous. Just as heinous as theists using politics and the state to promote theism.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
To eliminate religion is oppression. If I counsel someone to join us heathens in disbelief, this is fine. But to have government coerce people is unacceptable. It's been tried, & religion just won't go away. Government seems the more dangerous of the two.

It is possible to argue that atheism and humanism could "liberate" people from religious oppression, but this massively over-simplifies the role of religion in society, ignores it's diversity and overlooks the fact governments make bad liberators. So what you're saying is perfectly reasonable.

That would seem very unlikely to me given the science which strongly suggests that humans by our very nature tend towards certain forms of religiosity. You might as well ask, "Can Homo sapiens be eliminated from society as a whole?"

I agree with this whole-heartedly, as whilst atheism is a position on the non-existence of god, it does not necessarily come with the sense of personal fulfillment from a religious view in which we understand our place in the world. In terms of their psychological function, atheism necessitates a humanist response to know our purpose and meaning in life. I would argue that a fulfilling humanist view is possible, as faith is a function of human psychology rather than exclusively of religious belief but there isn't any such humanist world-view equal to religion really to speak of. Communism failed on this issue entirely even if it was briefly discussed in it's early days.

iii) should atheists use politics and the state as a way to promote atheism and/or eliminate religion?

Absolutely not. The very idea is heinous. Just as heinous as theists using politics and the state to promote theism.

No. I find that very dangerous.

No. Remove any expectancy of privilege, sure. But not attempt to remove it.

iii) should atheists use politics and the state as a way to promote atheism and/or eliminate religion?
Again the answer is "no, but..."
The BUT being that secularism should be the way that governments govern. People may practice any religion they like but not be afforded religious exemptions. E.g. in the UK today there is a big discussion about sex education in schools (why in 2015???) the main anti lobby is religiously driven, parents and pupils overwhelmingly want good age appropriate sex education. If your child is attending a school funded by the state then your child will receive appropriate sex education.

I think the problem is whether secularism innately privileges religious belief over non-belief. Whilst there is a separation of church and state, the moral and legal concepts of the state continue to be influenced by religious belief, particularly on the basis of free will (which entails individual autonomy and responsibility as is therefore the moral basis for our current conception of human rights).

The question of deliberate political influence over religion even in secular states is that there is no equivalent movement by atheists to challenge their authority. To a greater or lesser extent the liberal commitment to reason and individual belief works contrary to promoting secular, humanist and atheist positions, whilst theocrats, or religious conservatives still seek overt political influence. This is especially true on questions of norms of sexual behavior as the taboo on sexuality reinforces religious ethics regarding the family, marriage etc. and inhibits the development of secular or atheist sexual norms.

In so far as organized religion and organized atheism both represent evils to individual rights, in general religion has more influence than atheism (Scandinavian countries are an exception I think). I suppose because I think of religion as inherently tied to legal and moral questions that affects my view on the role of atheism as necessarily being inherently political.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The question of deliberate political influence over religion even in secular states is that there is no equivalent movement by atheists to challenge their authority. To a greater or lesser extent the liberal commitment to reason and individual belief works contrary to promoting secular, humanist and atheist positions, whilst theocrats, or religious conservatives still seek overt political influence. This is especially true on questions of norms of sexual behavior as the taboo on sexuality reinforces religious ethics regarding the family, marriage etc. and inhibits the development of secular or atheist sexual norms.

That looks like a good reason to spread challenges to theistic belief among society, doesn't it?

As I see it, ultimately the scope of freedom of belief will have to be accepted as that which is compatible with a secular society.

But that can't very well work as a directive from political authority itself. It must be accepted and understood by the masses themselves. It must be a grassroots movement, not a political decree.

In so far as organized religion and organized atheism both represent evils to individual rights, in general religion has more influence than atheism (Scandinavian countries are an exception I think). I suppose because I think of religion as inherently tied to legal and moral questions that affects my view on the role of atheism as necessarily being inherently political.

How is organized atheism at all nocive to individual rights?
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That looks like a good reason to spread challenges to theistic belief among society, doesn't it?

As I see it, ultimately the scope of freedom of belief will have to be accepted as that which is compatible with a secular society.

But that can't very well work as a directive from political authority itself. It must be accepted and understood by the masses themselves. It must be a grassroots movement, not a political decree.

Agreed. I prefer democracies for the obvious reason that they are much safer and more stable precisely because people accept their legitimacy as government by consent. Atheist dictatorships automatically imply atheism is in the minority or is in a very tenuous position.

How is organized atheism at all nocive to individual rights?

implicit in organized religion is the argument that society should be religious. politics, law, ethics and religion are intertwined- and hence potentially destructive to indivdiual rights as potentially theocratic. Secularism doesn't solve these conflicts but gives them a certian amount of lee way to be fought out peacefully. The opposite position for organised atheism- that society should be atheist- implies state atheism. Achieving an atheist grass roots movement however would have to be explicitly political and collective in nature and that contains the dangers of the abuse of power for ant-religious ends and loss of individual rights.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think an important distinction must be made between state atheism and organized atheism. And between either and secularism, obviously.

Yeah. That is fair. Secularism is driven primarily by liberalism and the desire for individual freedom of thought and religious/non-religious conscience. It has undoubtedly been a great advance in putting an end to the number of religious conflicts within society. Organized atheism is trying to work within that structure whereas state atheism is trying to impose atheism on society by force.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Indeed. For good or worse, the state has the power to make demands, and it is best for all if such power is kept apart from religious demands - either for or against.

That by no means implies any restrictions for any groups of religious or anti-religious ideology to organize and spread their messages, of course. They will and they must have their freedoms and, as it will doubtless happen, their conflicts.

It just should not be seen as acceptable to have them play with the government's toy while so doing.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I think the problem is whether secularism innately privileges religious belief over non-belief. Whilst there is a separation of church and state, the moral and legal concepts of the state continue to be influenced by religious belief, particularly on the basis of free will (which entails individual autonomy and responsibility as is therefore the moral basis for our current conception of human rights).

The question of deliberate political influence over religion even in secular states is that there is no equivalent movement by atheists to challenge their authority. To a greater or lesser extent the liberal commitment to reason and individual belief works contrary to promoting secular, humanist and atheist positions, whilst theocrats, or religious conservatives still seek overt political influence. This is especially true on questions of norms of sexual behavior as the taboo on sexuality reinforces religious ethics regarding the family, marriage etc. and inhibits the development of secular or atheist sexual norms.

In so far as organized religion and organized atheism both represent evils to individual rights, in general religion has more influence than atheism (Scandinavian countries are an exception I think). I suppose because I think of religion as inherently tied to legal and moral questions that affects my view on the role of atheism as necessarily being inherently political.

Once I became an atheist, despite what religious people told me, my concepts and perception of the world didn't change all that much as a direct consequence. I took notice that a lot of ideological positions are, on practice, merely explained by religion, but that they don't depend on religion to exist. And I dare say the same holds true to most people.

What I mean by this is that those who say that God wants a particular thing for your country would very likely remain thinking so even if they became atheists, the only difference being they wouldn't offer God as justification.

So, what would we do next once our open assault on religion with the power of the government fails to achieve our goals? Start chasing after people who have ideologies at odds with ours ? We know how this ends, right?
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Once I became an atheist, despite what religious people told me, my concepts and perception of the world didn't change all that much as a direct consequence. I took notice that a lot of ideological positions are, on practice, merely explained by religion, but that they don't depend on religion to exist. And I dare say the same holds true to most people.

What I mean by this is that those who say that God wants a particular thing for your country would very likely remain thinking so even if they became atheists, the only difference being they wouldn't offer God as justification.

So, what would we do next once our open assault on religion with the power of the government fails to achieve our goals? Start chasing after people who have ideologies at odds with ours ? We know how this ends, right?

That is a good point, as very few atheists go beyond a simple statement of their atheism. My understanding of Communism has fed into some really radical views on society (particularly on sexuality), and Atheism may well be a mask for some anti-religious views. So, You're right, there is little reason why atheism alone, as a single proposition, necessarily requires force by the exercise of the state power. it may well be that State Atheism has little to do with atheism at all- but is simply an anti-religious ideology justifying its own power and is a mischaracterization that serves to conceal the real motivations at work.

The problem with "state atheism" is that religion is not simply a belief in people's heads, but that people themselves give it power. To deny them that power requires an even greater power; State Atheism would only work (peacefully) if the belief and the believer were separable, otherwise it turns into a huge mess. equally, once you say religion is bad in itself, it opens to door to saying almost any belief is bad.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
I will address your questions first:

i) can religion be eliminated in society as a whole?


Probably not, and certainly not in the short term. But the elimination of religion is less important than the gradual elimination of superstition, and religious (primarily Abrahamic) fundamentalism.

ii) should an atheist try to talk a person out of their religious beliefs?


I think that we should focus on promoting skepticism, secularism and humanism. For many people that will be talking them out of their religious beliefs to greater or lesser degrees.


iii) should atheists use politics and the state as a way to promote atheism and/or eliminate religion?


Only to protect secular and liberal principles. For example, there is actually a fairly good argument for prohibiting the use of religious law in secular courts and in secular societies. Similarly, there should be no religious exemptions for anti-discrimination laws, and current religious entitlements should be revisited. Blasphemy laws should be repealed in toto, including laws that are designed to prevent "offense" to religious sensibilities. But the state should not actively attack churches or anything like that.

I actually do not care terribly much about freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is just a necessary subset of freedom of thought, which is the primary protection afforded by the US First Amendment, for example. So in Europe, I think it is necessary to tackle the irresponsible "hate speech" laws just as much as it is necessary to repeal outdated and obsolete (and often unenforced) blasphemy laws.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
i) can religion be eliminated in society as a whole?
Probably not.

ii) should an atheist try to talk a person out of their religious beliefs?
Heh... they're welcome to try.

I don't think we necessarily have a moral imperative to deconvert people, and there are social settings where it probably isn't a good idea to bring up religion, but I don't think there's any moral issue with trying to talk someone out of their religion.

iii) should atheists use politics and the state as a way to promote atheism and/or eliminate religion?
As the explicit goal? No. However, I expect that certain things I think governments should do (specifically: denial of special benefits for religions, a sturdy enough social safety net that the need for religious charities is extremely diminished, and promotion of science and critical thinking in education) will result in an increase in atheism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gsa

gsa

Well-Known Member
I also think we devalue the power of popular culture in promoting religious skepticism. Christians are constantly looking to erect bad props in support of their religious beliefs (i.e., the terrible film "God's Not Dead" and countless other examples). But consider this video and song "Take Me to Church" by Hozier:


The lyrics are a carefully calibrated attack on Christianity, particularly Catholic dogma. While the song and video are focused on human sexuality, which has a visceral appeal to many people, it is certainly not limited to sexuality:

'We were born sick, ' you heard them say it

My Church offers no absolutes
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'
The only heaven I'll be sent to
Is when I'm alone with you—

I was born sick,
But I love it
Command me to be well
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.


You can read the rest here.

I believe in not only usurping the religious claims of the Abrahamic religions, but also their flawed morality. Art is a powerful tool to illustrate how debasing these ideologies are. And also a powerful tool that can be used to demonstrate an alternative.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I also think we devalue the power of popular culture in promoting religious skepticism. Christians are constantly looking to erect bad props in support of their religious beliefs (i.e., the terrible film "God's Not Dead" and countless other examples). But consider this video and song "Take Me to Church" by Hozier:


The lyrics are a carefully calibrated attack on Christianity, particularly Catholic dogma. While the song and video are focused on human sexuality, which has a visceral appeal to many people, it is certainly not limited to sexuality:

'We were born sick, ' you heard them say it

My Church offers no absolutes
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'
The only heaven I'll be sent to
Is when I'm alone with you—

I was born sick,
But I love it
Command me to be well
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.


You can read the rest here.

I believe in not only usurping the religious claims of the Abrahamic religions, but also their flawed morality. Art is a powerful tool to illustrate how debasing these ideologies are. And also a powerful tool that can be used to demonstrate an alternative.

Yeah, the music video is very effective. In so far as this is part of a "Culture War" between Religion, Skepticism and Free Thought, I don't think this is enough. It is a battle over appearances, rather than the essence of religion- that is man's sense of powerlessness before the forces of nature, then represented as god. I suppose that means I'm seduced by the omnipotence of Communism as a totalitarian system, in which man overcomes the mysticism of religion by learning to play god through science- to master nature, society and him or her self based on rational knowledge with tangible results. The struggle can never be exclusively against religion, but the struggle for what takes it's place and what it means to be human without religion and to no longer need a god to order our lives because we have learned to find it for ourselves.

The Nietzschean problem of the "death of god" has intrigued me in so far as what happens once man renounces god, religion and all the things that follow; it would be a Freedom of a sort, but a pretty dark one. we are still stuck with the sense that the original sin of mankind is to pursue knowledge of good and evil and in someways this applies to know ourselves as the source of moral values.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
Yeah, the music video is very effective. In so far as this is part of a "Culture War" between Religion, Skepticism and Free Thought, I don't think this is enough. It is a battle over appearances, rather than the essence of religion- that is man's sense of powerlessness before the forces of nature, then represented as god. I suppose that means I'm seduced by the omnipotence of Communism as a totalitarian system, in which man overcomes the mysticism of religion by learning to play god through science- to master nature, society and him or her self based on rational knowledge with tangible results. The struggle can never be exclusively against religion, but the struggle for what takes it's place and what it means to be human without religion and to no longer need a god to order our lives because we have learned to find it for ourselves.

The Nietzschean problem of the "death of god" has intrigued me in so far as what happens once man renounces god, religion and all the things that follow; it would be a Freedom of a sort, but a pretty dark one. we are still stuck with the sense that the original sin of mankind is to pursue knowledge of good and evil and in someways this applies to know ourselves as the source of moral values.

What's not enough? Certainly not a single video; I'm just saying that the ideas can be communicated quite effectively through art.

We know now, of course, that the forces of nature are not gods, nor is there a god behind them playing the role of puppeteer. There is still a sense of awe, sometimes a terrible sense of awe, that is inspired by nature. If anything, and as you seem to intuit and suggest, the insights of natural selection, deep time, cosmology and physics have made this a much more frightening universe.

The truth is that we have a much greater role in our own trajectory than any other species on the planet. We are also the only species that is capable of apparent self-destruction on a global level. These are indeed terrifying realities, there is no getting around it.

As for communism, I think it is also important to realize that communism was never even conceived of as an end, but as the stage at which humanity's potential could actually begin to be realized. The demands of the Communist Manifesto were quite modest, after all; not unlike what you might find in our modern social democracies.

Anyway, I actually think that much of our existential angst is a product of the transition from a world (or society) mired in ignorance and superstition to one that is, if not enlightened, then at least aware of the extent of its ignorance and less reliant on superstition as a causal explanation. I do not believe that Nietzsche would have experienced the same problem of the "death of god" had be been born and raised in contemporary Germany, for example.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What's not enough? Certainly not a single video; I'm just saying that the ideas can be communicated quite effectively through art.

Yeah, sorry. It took me a while to figure out what I was going to say and got caught up in a different train of thought mid-sentence. you made a perfectly valid point and culture is an effective vehicle for communicating that message.

We know now, of course, that the forces of nature are not gods, nor is there a god behind them playing the role of puppeteer. There is still a sense of awe, sometimes a terrible sense of awe, that is inspired by nature. If anything, and as you seem to intuit and suggest, the insights of natural selection, deep time, cosmology and physics have made this a much more frightening universe.

That is my feelings exactly. The scale of the processes that are going on demand a certain respect. I hope from respecting them we will see the need for knowledge.

The truth is that we have a much greater role in our own trajectory than any other species on the planet. We are also the only species that is capable of apparent self-destruction on a global level. These are indeed terrifying realities, there is no getting around it.

technologically speaking, we're still very much in our infancy- our capacity for self-destruction is really only began with nuclear weapons. So I wonder if we're ready to deal with what ever we discover next. we're a bit trigger happy.

As for communism, I think it is also important to realize that communism was never even conceived of as an end, but as the stage at which humanity's potential could actually begin to be realized. The demands of the Communist Manifesto were quite modest, after all; not unlike what you might find in our modern social democracies.

True. it was supposed to be infinite; the end of "prehistory" as Marx put it. humanity was supposed to be an end in itself, and as you say- communism, the means.

Anyway, I actually think that much of our existential angst is a product of the transition from a world (or society) mired in ignorance and superstition to one that is, if not enlightened, then at least aware of the extent of its ignorance and less reliant on superstition as a causal explanation. I do not believe that Nietzsche would have experienced the same problem of the "death of god" had be been born and raised in contemporary Germany, for example.

yeah. I do get the sense it is some kind of growing pains. we're kind of in our adolescence as a species- we're learning what is possible and want to do more, but haven't quite matured enough to know when to stop. the 20th century was a major setback for our ego because of how much went wrong. this century will probably be about how we develop that maturity, or at least I hope so.

Nietzsche probably wouldn't have had so much trouble today, as his insight was really derived from that rupture between science and religion at the end of the 19th century. he posed the philosophical problems slap bang in the middle and they are still difficult questions even today.
 
Top