Atheism as a Stealth Religion II: Let's Get Real

My previous blog attracted 250 comments, putting atheism right up there with Britney Spears as one of the most newsworthy issues of our day. Seriously, there are important issues at stake with the New Atheism movement, meriting a follow-up blog. One question on my mind concerns the quality of discourse that can be achieved with a blog-and-comment format. Can it rise above the intellectual equivalent of a barroom brawl?

Here are some bullet points to organize the next round of comments:

I am an atheist: Some readers thought that I must be a religious believer attempting to level the playing field by calling atheism a stealth religion. If theism refers to a belief in supernatural agents capable of intervening in natural processes, then I am 100% an atheist and proud of it.

What do I mean by a stealth religion? I clearly define a stealth religion as any belief system that distorts the facts of the real world (yes, there is a real world out there, and it does not include people sitting on clouds) for the purpose of motivating a given suite of behaviors. Beliefs in supernatural agents are a particular distortion of factual reality and I want to broaden the discussion to include all distortions of factual reality. It's no good quoting dictionary definitions of atheism and religion, when I clearly state what I mean.

What do I mean by factual and practical realism? A belief is factually realistic when it accurately describes what's really out there (e.g., there are no people up there sitting on clouds). A belief is practically realistic when it causes the believer to behave adaptively in the real world. If you were to ask me for advice about a plan of action, and I replied that your plan is not realistic, you would understand me correctly to mean that your plan is unlikely to work. Thus, the term "practical realism" is fully intuitive, as long as I clearly define its meaning, as I have.

Practical realism is a good thing. Since most atheists are self-described truth lovers, it is easy to conclude that we have a moral obligation to favor factual over practical realism, whenever the two conflict. However, most of us presumably also want to live in happy, healthy, thriving communities. If there is an unavoidable trade-off between factual and practical realism, that would place all of us in a moral dilemma. Atheists such as myself are banking on the possibility that we can have our cake and eat it too; that factual realism can contribute to, rather than detracting from practical realism. We need to be clear about our own articles of faith.

Not all forms of atheism are stealth religions. Some readers jumped to the conclusion that I am branding all forms of atheism as stealth religions. Not in the least. It is perfectly possible to have a belief system that is as factually realistic as possible, which we consult for our plans of action. The question is how well any particular atheistic belief system approaches this ideal.

The flag, the cross...and science and reason. Sinclair Lewis (recently quoted by presidential candidate Ron Paul) said "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag carrying a cross." To that we can add "and claiming to be supported by science and reason." No, I am not accusing the New Atheists of having a hidden fascist agenda, but I am making the reasonable point that all forms of authority are vulnerable to abuse, as the sorry history of Social Darwinism attests. We need to be suspicious about arguments cloaked in all forms of authority.

Stealth religions need not be conscious. I am not saying that the New Atheists (or anyone else) see the world clearly and then willfully distort it to suit their purposes. The problem is worse than that. The world we see clearly is often already distorted by mental processes that operate beneath our awareness. That's why it is important to see the complex relationship between factual and practical realism from an evolutionary perspective, reflected in the deep structure of our brains and cultures.

Environmentalism as a stealth religion. It might help to apply these ideas to an example other than atheism. We are faced with many environmental crises that threaten our long-term welfare. Most of the problems are complex (e.g., chemicals in plastics that mimic hormones) and require accurate scientific understanding to be solved. Yet, people also need to be goaded into action at an unprecedented scale. Many beliefs advanced by environmentalists, including predictions that seem to be supported by volumes of data and sophisticated models, are systematically distorted in the direction of overstating the dangers, as journalist Michael Duffy reports in a recent article. As Duffy puts it " virtual science is ripe for manipulation, usually unconsciously, by virtuous scientists. Few people are aware of the large element of subjectivity, not only in the design of immensely complicated general circulation models, but in the data that goes into them." This constitutes a genuine moral dilemma. Should we remain true to factual realism when our uncertainty might be used as an excuse for inaction? Is it justified to inflate the risks and conceal our uncertainty to promote planetary survival? Welcome to the trade-offs between factual and practical realism.

Is the New Atheism a movement? Some readers objected to having atheism called a movement with designated leaders. For them, atheism is just a bunch of independent thinkers who refuse to be herded. That might be true for atheism as a whole, but can there be any doubt that authors such as Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Sam Harris are trying to start a movement? They even have their own label -- "The Brights", which thankfully seems to be going nowhere. The term "New Atheists" tends to be used by critics of the fledgling movement, such as myself, but it's no good trying to raise consciousness and then denying that you are trying to start a movement.

It's OK to be a carnival barker... I am sometimes chided for criticizing the books of the New Atheists as if they were scientific tomes, when in fact they are designed to attract the attention of the general public in the crowded cultural marketplace. I have no objection to carnival barking -- as long as there is something worth seeing inside the tent. If the new atheists are not basing their claims about religion on the best that science has to offer, then they are part of the problem. My complaint about the New Atheism is that it is based on bad science, in the same way that environmentalism is often based on bad science. It doesn't matter that the intentions of the New Atheists might be virtuous--they have gone the way of stealth religion.

By their language, you shall know them. Some of the comments on my last blog are notable for the frequency of words and phrases expressing certainty and intolerance, such as "counter-rational nonsense (Frederic)", "atheism never gets in the way of science (ChistopherLib)", "completely failed at your stated goal (Amolinaro)", "the symbol would be the back of my hand raised to your face with all fingers in a fist but the center one (GoodwithWood)", "grow up (Mkaplan)", and so on. The tone of these comments prompted priscianusjr to write "Most of the pro-atheist comments here actually corroborate your point" and thicky to quip "This is blasphemy! Uh...I mean nonsense!" (where do we bring the kindling for burning Mr. Wilson at the stake?)"

Let's get real. Everyone who claims to be guided primarily by science and reason has an obligation to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk. There are impeccable reasons for distrusting statements cloaked in the authority of science and reason, no less than the flag and the cross. I don't see how any self-respecting atheist can deny this claim in the abstract, so let's see if we can put it to work in the quality of our discourse about religion, from world-famous authors to the readers of HuffPost commenting on blogs.

Comments

[HeevenSteven]

Re: "� I"m interested that placebo are others are able to see the distinction between practical and factual realism clearly and still feel comfortable practicing a religion (in his case Mormonism) for its practical benefits. This awareness is quite common among religious believers, in my experience, although they are not always so forthright in admitting it."

----

Dr Wilson, thanks for the follow up. I find the subject of your statement above very interesting as well. I think we could fill a few pages of comments (productive and unproductive as well) on that subject alone. (in fact I guess we already got into that a bit)

I finally got around to reading your critiques of Dawkin's and Dennett's books. I should have done that a week ago.

I will endeavor to understand your next post more thoroughly (as much as I am capable) before I put fingers to keypad.

Oh, and thanks for setting Muse straight. lol.

[Dap]

==

The search for knowledge is an unquenchable thirst, the more one partakes, the greater ones ignorance becomes. - Dapper.

[DavidSloanWilson]

Thanks to those who commented on Stealth II, for the most part very constructively. I feel like someone who offered a melody to a jazz group, who then started improvising in ways that I could never have anticipated!

Here are a few comments on the comments, before proceeding to Stealth III.

¢ To moderationsmuse, who said that religion is innately part of human experience: I think it"s important to remember that thoroughgoing atheism wasn"t possible until Darwin"s theory and therefore has had less than 150 years to prove itself. The fact that some individuals can be entirely fulfilled as atheists suggests that whole societies can also, at least in principle.

¢ I"m interested that placebo are others are able to see the distinction between practical and factual realism clearly and still feel comfortable practicing a religion (in his case Mormonism) for its practical benefits. This awareness is quite common among religious believers, in my experience, although they are not always so forthright in admitting it.

¢ Numerous comments affirmed the value and need for spirituality in some sense that is consistent with factual realism. I agree, and regard myself as a spiritual person myself, but we still need to clarify what we mean by spirituality from a purely naturalistic perspective.

¢ Some comments also discussed collective consciousness and the Omega Point, presumably in reference to the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin (The Phenomenon of Man). He thought that human consciousness represented a new level of evolution and that the separate consciousnesses of people would eventually merge into a single global consciousness"the Omega Point. He also wrote as if the Omega Point was an inevitable outcome of long-term evolution. From a modern evolutionary perspective, the inevitability part of the argument is extremely flawed, but the idea of human mentality as a new level of evolution and the theoretical possibility of a global consciousness still has merit.

(to be continued...)

[Dap]

Dear Dr. Wilson,

I get the new paradigm thing, yet I'm not buying the stealth religion part. I strongly support what you say about our subconscious being a stealth mechanism under ones own radar that we may not be aware of.

The approach is still too provocative and confusing, it does not fit a sound model change.

All in all, an enjoyable post. Agape.

[moderationsmuse]

To the best atheists ever, I'll be away from my computer tomorrow so I'll miss what happens next. But I'm sure that whatever it is, whether here in "God's country" or out there in the land of politics, well, .... it will be really, really, really something.

Meanwhile, echoing the immortal words of Rodney King, try to get along.
Muse

[HeevenSteven]

Re: Deepak's latest post.

Muse, Zanti, Dap, anyone here? What's your position on Psychic dogs and parrots? Put me down as an extremely skeptical. If I can find some time, I'm going to read up on it before I comment.

[HeevenSteven]

I finally got the end of the book --Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Though Jokes--, and the punchline. Spoiler alert!!

Plato and a Platypus walk into a bar. The bartender looks at the Platypus and then gives Plato a quizzical look. Plato looks at the bartender, shrugs and says, "What can I say; she looked better in the cave".

[Dap]

One thing is sure...

The whole of the universe is wonderous, all the life within an astonishment, by design or no.

[moderationsmuse]

Following your directions, HS, I respond in new thread:
Wow. I am glad someone is keeping score. Looks like we did pretty good by our metaphysics.

Intelligent design as valid scientific theory: as a non-scientist, I cannot weigh in. Ask me after I have mastered the multiplication tables and check book balancing.
My -- what shall I call it? -- "hunch" (?) is that the universe is intelligently, if somewhat inscrutably, designed. Whether that will ever be demonstrable? Don't know. Design however suggests a telos, which can provoke one's curiosity along the lines of "why are we here?" Not "here" at Huff Po, of course, but "here" on planet Earth during this moment of Hawkins' Brief History.
If I read Plato correctly, I think he (and/or his character/person) Socrates see the universe as designed and purposeful -- and that hence humankind's role in the universe becomes a provocative and wonderful question.

[Dap]

Zanti,

I'm dyslexic, do ya get make yourself feel superior by making funny of blind people also, bragging on how well your eye-sight works?

Like I said before good luck on your path, you'll be learning much.

The difference between us is that I am aware of my ignorance and bias, you not so much.

Take this statement for example:

"And please explain how your profound understanding of the human mind proves or disproves God." - Zanti

Just by making the statement above shows you're not even close to being in the game.

Without understanding the human psyche and brain, how do you ever expect to know anything, including yourself? And if you don't understand yourself, how can you expect to understand others?

Wisdom, is not just having knowledge, it is by knowing the proper way in which to use what knowledge one has that wisdom is achieved.

Philosopher, examine thy-self.

[Zanti]

Ladies and gentlemen, courtesy of Dap:

"Each and every man made God can, and without any doubt be disproved. Fact!"

I don't know about you, but I can't wait to read his follow-up post, in which he backs this up.

Someone get some media coverage lined up--this is front-page stuff. Back to you, Dap.

[JamesRedford]

Again, as I said previously, the known laws of physics (i.e., general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Extended Standard Model of particle physics) force us to the conclusion that computational resources in the universe must diverge to infinity (i.e., in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times). The final state of infinite informational capacity (which is never reached in experiential time) is identified as being God.

For much more on the technical details of the above, see:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, December 27, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=180440118

"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, December 30, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=180911834

Theophysics http://www.geocities.com/theophysics/

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to invent tenuous physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependant on the conjectured string theory-based AdS/CFT correspondence (anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence). (See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 [October 2005] http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171 .)

Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the Omega Point. But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

[markus7]

Modern religious people usually freely admit their irrationality with regard to their religious "faith". Many even see the irrationality of their "faith" as a virtue. In sharp contrast, atheists and environmentalists can be expected to pride themselves on their rationality. Claiming that atheists and environmentalists are guilty of starting stealth religions, and by implication intentionally abandoning rational thought, seems to me to be both incorrect and needlessly provocative.

The type of distortions some atheists and environmentalists are accused of in Professor Wilson"s article are found everywhere in politics, business, war, and, particularly sadly, sometimes even science. These distortions are everywhere because they are part of every human being"s standard capacity for self serving delusion intensified by instinctual "us versus them" thinking, (which for atheists has far too much basis in real persecution even in modern times).

In accusing them of starting stealth religions, there seems to be an element of name calling which I have not previously seen in Professor Wilson"s work.

[moderationsmuse]

HeevenSteven
I answered your inquiry about the alledged Muslim murderer and the atheist doctor providing legal pharmaceuticals to the atheist couple. And because it was your exam, I would like to know whether my answers were correct.
From what source of ideas should laws be decided?
Turn about is fair play.
Muse

[HeevenSteven]

I'm often denser than a brick, but sometimes I understand complicated stuff...simple stuff too.

I now get the "stealth religion" thing. It's simply any constitution that causes or enables an individual or society to function as it does. It "stealth" when it's not codified or characterized as a belief system as we think of religion, it just operates like one in that it produces or maybe PRECLUDES certain behaviors.

You're concerned that our success as a species is due to certain adaptations that include religious type beliefs. If we think we'd be better off without them, we should be careful what we wish for, because it might not be so. History is difficult to test, so an evolutionary theory can maybe correlate with some historical ones?

I guess that begs philosophical questions of what defines success. From an evolutionary view, lots of members of a species can be successful, or maybe just being around for millions of years (crocodiles, roaches etc).

If our religions causes us to believe we have dominion over the earth and animals, and our divine duty is to be fruitful and multiply, progress is conquering nature, many of us can see that this may not ultimately be good for our future success. Population crashes are likely eventually, and we'll need to switch to the longevity model of success; so we'll have to adapt our religious beliefs. Religions evolve too, eh?

I just wish you hadn't used "stealth religion" as a definition. I can just imagine bible thumping politicians and preachers now condemning the heathen "religion of atheism" and pointing to scientific evidence for it's existence.