The Political Inquirer

Brian: Welcome to the second round of our ‘God in Society’ debate here at PoliticalInquirer.com. We apologize for the delay between rounds but one of our participants had a crisis that he had to attend to before he was able to resume. Now we can pick up where we left off a few weeks ago.

The first question in round two will be presented first to “M” of the group blog Atheism is Dead representing Theism and that will be followed by a rejoinder from Leo who is from the group blog de-conversion and who will be representing Atheism.

“M”, the first question is this, “Is Atheism more likely to be beneficial or detrimental to a society?” This is a question about the pragmatics of belief and is the other side of the coin from the question asked in round one.

M: I believe that the increasing number of individuals who begin to adopt Atheism may continue to live as they did before only due to the fact that they have been conditioned by the Theistic society before them. Under this sort of conditioning, absolute morals and objective values still play a large role within people’s lives. However, I do believe that as time goes by the essential foundation for those beliefs will soon dissolve in people’s minds and society will slowly dwindle.
Brian: Leo, your response?

 

Atheism is not a proscribed set of beliefs, and atheists are not a monolithic group of people. It’s rather like most religions in that way. We have tens of thousands of Christian denominations, Buddhist sects, Islamic sects. Even within each denomination or sect, individuals have differing beliefs or doctrines from one another and/or from the leaders of their church, synagogue, or what have you. In the same way there are numerous schools of atheistic thought, and any individual atheist will likely have his/her own particular views about gods, society, and morality. 

So to get anything like an answer to the question, “Is atheism beneficial or dangerous or to society?” we cannot look at atheism as a whole, since there is no cohesive whole to look at. We must try to break atheism up into types of atheism (or types of atheists) and consider them separately. Even with this approach we will have the problem of artificially demarcating groups that aren’t really homogenous.

 

Some general groups into which I think we can divide atheism are:
Militant (or evangelical) atheism
Antitheism
Laissez-faire atheism
Strong atheism
Weak atheism
Religious atheism
Default atheism
Practical atheism  

Of course others may propose different groups, and the ones I’ve used overlap and don’t have clear line of demarcation. But then any time you try to shoehorn people into groups it comes out a mess.

 

The first three groups are essentially classified by the actions of their members. 

Militant (evangelical) atheismis composed of atheists who actively try to spread atheism and to “de-convert” theists. Militant atheists tend to write books, harass evangelists, call talk shows, and so on. They have the mindset of, “We’re right. They’re wrong. And we need to set them straight.”

 

This type of atheism can be dangerous for a few reasons. Militant atheists often insult theists and regard them as being dupes. Militant atheists are often arrogant and they tend to upset people unnecessarily. All of this tends to foster ill will, misunderstandings, and closed minds (on both sides of the debate). I can’t see how any of this is beneficial, and it’s the sort of thing that wouldn’t have to try too hard to lead to fistfights or worse. 

Antitheismis basically militant atheism on steroids; complete with the bad temper. Antitheists regard all religions as evil, and dangerous. Many antitheists would even be happy to pass laws against religions. It doesn’t take a lot of deep, reflective thinking to see that such an extreme position is dangerous. No theist is going to put up with being called evil, or with being outlawed. Thankfully antitheists are a rather small minority.

 

Laissez-faire atheism takes the position of, “I’ll be an atheist. You believe whatever you like.” They don’t tend to evangelize, and if you evangelize them, they may just say they aren’t interested, or they may engage the conversation just to see where it goes. But they’re not apt to get very worked up over debates and such. 

This position surely isn’t dangerous, and it might just be beneficial.  I’m of the opinion that when people discuss differences of belief in a manner of polite interest and are willing to allow others to believe as they please, it fosters understanding and goodwill. And frankly, if you do want to convince someone to adopt your beliefs, bonhomie will usually take you further than vehemence.

 

The next two types of atheism are more philosophical classes. 

Strong atheismpositively asserts that there is/are no God/gods, whether of the supreme, monotheistic type, or lesser, polytheistic types. Strong atheists are generally antisupernaturalists too. Strong atheists are the sorts who are more likely to be militant or antitheist, with the attendant dangers I mentioned before. But there are certainly strong, laissez-faire atheists.

 

Weak atheismencompasses agnosticism. Its adherents are of the opinion that there is/are no God/gods, but they don’t hold the position dogmatically. Some may even think that some sort of great being or force exists, but that it does not interact with humanity in any discernable way. Weak atheists tend to have laissez-faire attitudes toward theists. But there certainly are evangelical, weak atheists. Generally speaking though, the laissez-faire attitudes of weak atheists tend, to make them pretty peaceable; which I think is a good thing. 

Now I come to the last three classes, which don’t really group together, but hey, I already said grouping people always comes out a mess.

 

Religious atheism is not an oxymoron. There are a number of religions that don’t include deities. Jainism, Buddhism, and Confucianism all fit in this category, though there are subsects that have incorporated various deities. I’ll not try to assess the benefits or dangers of those religions since that’s a whole ‘nother essay or three.

 

Default atheism is the position of those who don’t really think much about religious or philosophical matters, but for all intents and purposes don’t believe in any deity. You find these people quite commonly. They don’t get into religious discussions much, and they really just want to get on with their lives for the most part. Default atheists by and large tend to do their jobs, take care of their families, enjoy their weekends, and don’t do much to rock any proverbial boats. They are pretty harmless, and are generally beneficial in that they are steady workers and such. 

Practical atheism is my own term for those who, regardless of what they may claim to believe, live unaffected by any belief. Practical atheists may claim to believe almost anything, and you can find them occupying church pews all over the world. They are certainly a hard to identify group, but they do have one unifying characteristic. No matter what they claim to believe, they live like there is/are no God/gods. Should their religion tell them to be honest, or hard working, or to tithe, it matters not a whit. They are only in it for lip service, socializing, and appearance. There is of course a more common word for practical atheists… hypocrites. 

Are practical atheists beneficial? Well they do have jobs and they do spend money, so that’s dandy for the economy. Are practical atheists harmful? Somehow hypocrisy always seems to have a negative impact. It seems to give rise to fraud, church and business abuses, rebellious children, power grabs, and a host of other social ills. On balance I have to think of practical atheists as more dangerous than beneficial.

 

So what’s the tally now?

Militant atheism – can be dangerous
Antitheism – likely to be dangerous
Laissez-faire atheism – perhaps beneficial
Strong atheism – possibly dangerous
Weak atheism – likely beneficial on balance
Religious atheism – no judgment
Default atheism – probably beneficial or at least neutral
Practical atheism –on balance, dangerous  

That’s beneficial three, dangerous four. But you know, I’m gonna take a point off the dangerous side because it belongs not to a group of open atheists, but rather to a group composed in large part of religious hypocrites.

 

By this far-from-scientific analysis, atheism comes out kinda neutral. And frankly, given that atheists are a minority in most countries, they can’t really have too much influence anyway. (Unless you believe in the “Great, world-wide, atheist conspiracy”.) 

But there is one “atheist” subgroup that does worry me a bit. Practical atheists (read that ‘hypocrites’) are plentiful, and they make any group associated with them look bad. I give them my strongest condemnation. Hey! Didn’t some guy in the Bible take a similar view of them? (I think his initials were J.C.)

Brian: The next question is, “Do Atheist tend to be more progressive thinkers that Theist? For instance, are they more likely to uphold modern concepts like the seperation of church and state? Are they more likely to support causes like embryo stem cell research because ideas like a “soul” are less likely to interfere. Leo?

Leo: I would have to answer yes to this. Surveys, exit polls, and the like consistently show that atheists and agnostics are quite dedicated to separation of church and state, sometimes to a rather fanatical degree. They are also more likely to be in the progressive or liberal camp on ideas such as embryonic stem cell research, abortion, et cetra.

There seem to be various reasons for this tendency. First, certainly the idea of the “soul” is not likely to enter the thinking of most atheists, though some do believe in the “soul”. Second, Atheists who were formerly of the fundamentalist stripe generally tend to polarize away from everything they formerly believed. Thus they tend to end up becoming politically liberal. Finally, since there is a tendency toward the left among atheists and agnostics (for whatever reasons), an atheist would have to run counter to his/her peer group to be conservative. Most people just don’t do that. (And believe me, as a rather conservative individual, I know how strongly my fellow atheists/agnostics react to conservative ideology.)

Brian: M?

M: I don’t think Atheists are progressive at all in their thinking because there ultimately is nothing to be progressive about. Within a materialist and even more detailed evolutionary paradigm, there is nothing progressive or absolutists about anyone’s morality. I believe that Atheists do tend to uphold such modern concepts as embryo cell research, but whether this is good or not depends on a standard from which to progress.

I believe that Atheists tend to fall in line with a quote by G.K. Chesterton:

“Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision.”

Brian: As “M” lets that answer hang in the air we will move on to the next question. M, you are first this time. The question is this, “If the United States became a predominetly Atheistic nation in the next twenty-years would this help or hurt foreign relations?”

M: I think it would hurt foreign relations since most countries are not Atheistic. In fact, even Europe is becoming less and less Atheistic as Theists (primarily Muslims) are starting to move in. I don’t believe Atheists really have a good grasp, much less a good argument as to why they should be having foreign relations to begin with. They cannot connect with religious persons on the same level because one rejects the essential foundations that the other upholds.

Brian: Leo?

Leo:  I’d say probably not, though it could happen. Again basing this on examples from nations that have already gone down this path:

 

(1) England, Denmark, France, Holland, Sweden, to name just a few, are all countries with a substantial atheist/agnostic percentage in their population. Yet they do not suffer from terrible foreign relations. (OK. Insert jokes about France here…..)

 

(2) The former Soviet Union was avowedly atheist and had truly terrible foreign relations.

(3) China, with a somewhat atheistic leadership, has had lousy foreign relations, but is now slowly improving.

 

(4) Much of the Middle East has lousy foreign relations though they are quite theistic.

I don’t really think that atheism, or theism, is the critical issue in foreign relations. I think a nation needs to base its foreign relations in a desire to seek mutual advantages, to seek to maintain peace, and in a desire for mutual understanding. Such bases need not depend on religion, and in fact some religions could be detrimental to such goals.

Brian: Leo, “Does Atheism eventually lead to a more or less tolerant society?” And on that note, “How important is it to practice tolerance?”

Leo: To the first question I can again say with confidence, “yes/no/maybe/that depends”. I’ve seen atheists who are quite tolerant. But I’ve also seen atheists who are thoroughly intolerant, e.g. the ‘antitheists’ mentioned earlier. I don’t think it’s the particular position one takes relative to religion that makes one tolerant or intolerant. Personal arrogance seems to be the greatest wellspring of intolerance, and there’s certainly no shortage of that on either side of the theistic fence.

 

How important is tolerance? That varies from issue to issue. There’s certainly no room for intolerance of people based on their race or sex. By contrast, we can all be justly intolerant of incompetence. So tolerance must be applied in varying degrees according to the domain of interest. Generally I prefer generous tolerance to be practiced over a wide range of domains, while intolerance is reserved for those domains where it is truly necessary. I wish there were clear guidelines to establish those domains, but alas there are not. 

Brian: “M”, same question.

M: That’s difficult to answer because it would appear that Atheism leads to less tolerance if we look at the 20^th century data pragmatically. Now, many Atheists may say that Atheism is not the cause of something because it is merely a rejection of something else, but if there are natural consequences to rejecting that something else then we could positively conclude that this question holds some relevance.

I think it does.

We’ve never seen a purely Atheistic world, so it’s difficult to determine if there would be more or less tolerance. I’m trying to be a little careful with this assertion since we only have data from the last century. We could say Communism was the real issue or other such totalitarian states, but we have yet to see a Communists state NOT influenced by Atheists or a totalitarian regime that did as much damage as those under Atheists influence.

Does this suggest that Atheists are bad people? Of course not. It just suggests that there appears to be a massive change in perspective towards human value and life in general when Atheists are in power. Whether this is “good” or “bad” is determined by your worldview.

I think it is extremely important to practice tolerance for the sake of truth and for the value of human life.

Brian: The following will be our last and final question for round two. Round three will merely be closing statements from our two debaters. Since the last round included the question, “What would our nation look like if Theism faded away a century from now?”, we must ask the same question about Atheism.

With that we ask, “What would our nation look like if Atheism faded away in the same time span and an official state religion took over as well–whether Christianity, Islam, or so forth?” “M” first; Leo, final word.

M: I don’t think we’d see much difference than what we see today. Atheists and their Atheism aren’t the balancing factor in the world today. They are a blip on the radar.

Leo: Once again I can only try to conjecture from examples found in history and in the world today.

Societies with strong theistic groundings have often been problematic at best. Cromwell’s Puritan England is something most of us would have hated to live in. The days of powerful Catholic rule in many parts of Europe were hardly any more fun. The Hindu kingdom of Nepal vigorously, sometimes viciously, suppresses religious freedom and is rather isolationist. And of course we’re all hearing almost daily about the ugliness of fundamentalist Islam in Iraq, Iran, etc.

On the other side of the coin though, Muslim Spain, in the early part of the second millennium, was a bastion of academia, free trade, and even religious freedom. The early US colony of Pennsylvania, though founded and lead mostly by Quakers, enjoyed much religious freedom and was one of the early centers of anti slavery sentiment.

So a US guided by, “a particular theistic understanding” could go many ways. I’d be loathe to have the US run by fundamentalism of any stripe. By the same token, I don’t think I’d like the country being run by liberal Anglicans (or Orthodox, or Lutherans, or whatever), I rather like the US with its current pluralism of religion, ideology, race, etc.  I can’t say just what the US would be like as a theistic state, but I fear that it might not be the “land of the free”.

Brian: Thank you Leo. And thank you “M”. Readers, this is your chance to participate. Let the commenting begin. The next time we hear from Leo and “M” will be their final statements.