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

[realitytrumpsbull]

There is no guarantee of Ultimate Truth in anything, it's always 'buyer beware'. Accuracy,
precision, clarity, these are three attributes
that are desirable in your reasoning, that and
the capacity for skepticisn and critical thinking.

The reason I chose to disafilliate from any
sort of religious institutions is that I kind
of became convinced that, well, some of those
people just don't want to think very hard, or ask questions. Bible in one hand, religious
propaganda of other sorts in the other, Moonies on the march.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonies
http://www.perkel.com/politics/moonies/
http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/moonies/

Atheism, bluntly spoken, means you don't believe in the Invisible Man(Carlin). You likely don't believe in the Hereafter, either,
but rather more along the lines of Burt Monroe,
that when you're dead, you're dead.

But, what do you do when all of a sudden, there's no Invisible Man? Well, doesn't make
a hell of a lot of sense to go to church, does
it? That's the fan club, there, and though
the various churches and stuff do some good
things, a lot does rest on whether you're
a Believer, or not. If you haven't accepted
Jesus Christ as your lord and personal saviour
'cause you don't believe in God, that's going
to cause some friction at the old social gatherings. Nope, to be an atheist is to quite frankly walk your own path. It is also to question the political and economic ambitions of such religious institutions as have established themselves in the world in our modern times. Read back the last 20-30 years, and a lot of different people, including the Moonies, have garnered a lot of political and economic power for themselves under the guise of 'religion', You've got your Catholics, your Muslims, your Buddhists, your Mormons, your Jews, then there were people like Jim Jones,
whatshername, Rajneesh, Koresh, and finally
on down to Bin Laden. Religion-as-cult is
a subject that could span VOLUMES, and the
actions of the culties likewise. God, save me from your fan club(s).

[Norge]

I have known a few so called atheists during their life times though on their death beds they all had Hope for more than what they so fervently denied while in the prime of life.
In their latter hours they went from atheist to agnostic just like magic. The hardest of the hardest logic simply fades away as the last moments of their lives.

And such is not surprising in the real world for that absolute door which waits there for all of us opens and closes so fast it has never been penetrated for scientific investigation.

[MBDowd]

David, what a delight to read your blog here! As I mentioned in my "Evolutionary Religious Studies" blog on my Thank God for Evolution website: http://thankgodforevolution.com/blog/p,49/ I find your writings and your work to be some of the most inspiring and helpful I've ever encountered. Keep up the great work! ~ Michael Dowd

[moderationsmuse]

David Sloan Wilson
What an reasonable blog this is. Are you sure we're still at Huff Po??

[angryoldman]

Evolution has given us a brain that is wired to figure things out. That is our evolutionary advantage over other creatures that are stronger and faster than us. This quirk of biology cannot ever stop trying to fulfill it's hard wired mandate, therefor it has come up with two systems of thought in its never ending quest for understanding. One is called SCIENCE and the other is called RELIGION. Both sytems will always come up against the barrier of the ultimate unknowable. You can choose to call this GOD or just accept it for what it seems to be.Or as shakespeare put it,...To be or not be . That is the question.

[thicky]

I am reminded of the argument that brought religion back into my life, if only as a subject of research and fascination.

It was in the 80's--I'm not sure if at the time I was more of a radical atheist filled with contempt and condescension toward the religious or just anti-organized religion--when I heard Carl Sagan speaking while on a book tour for CONTACT(never read the book but liked the movie). He made the point that 95% of the world's people believe in religion/god(I believe the figure today is 85%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

If one takes the verifiable fact that the overwhelming majority of humans on this planet believe in religion/god as being true then THE BELIEF in religion must be accepted as a scientific fact describing the human condition. Religions aren't factual but the BELIEF in them is. To deny or dismiss this fact as irrelevant--85% of humans believe in religion/god--is to be unscientific.

Any respectable scientist will accept this as fact and try to understand why this BELIEF is so pervasive and important to the human animal.
One avenue of scientific exploration into the human need of religion/god is neurotheology:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~atmxw/neuro.html

It seems the most reasonable explanation for this fact is one of evolutionary fitness. Real or not, the BELIEF in religion/god has offered humans an advantage in our evolution as social creatures.

[Norge]

With a possible 15 billion year old cosmos, it's potentual to surprise humans with it's contents should not be lightly dismissed.

And we humans have not existed but a possible 100,000 years. And yet we still beat each other over the head.

[wondering]

Wow. I have re-read this post many times, and I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Let's take this: "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.­"

Now how in the world does atheism (which you label a stealth religion) distort the facts of the real world? Are you implying that the existence of gods is a proveable fact, and atheism distorts this? I am at a loss.

Then this gem, "There are impeccable reasons for distrusting statements cloaked in the authority of science and reason, no less than the flag and the cross." I am stunned. If you're going to toss science and reason into the irrational­-belief-sy­stem pot with religion and nationalism, then we might as well go back to living in caves. Do you even know what science is? This is EXACTLY the argument used by religionists to attack atheism.

Then the weirdest of all, "No, I am not accusing the New Atheists of having a hidden fascist agenda, but..." Oh, what an old trick, the back-hand compliment. It's a favorite ploy of unscrupulous politicians - "Now I'm not sayin my opponent is a womanizing commie, but..."

You, of course, will paint this as a New Atheist (whatever that is) attack, but I must say you come across as an agnostic, not an atheist. What are you really asking of atheists? - tolerance of religion? keep our minds open to the supernatural? keep quiet and sit on our hands?

I just don't understand a self-described atheist claiming atheism constitutes a religion - the very thing he supposedly rejects. Somebody help me out here - am I missing something?

In the end, what seems to motivate your argument is anger at other prominent atheists for being too strongly opinionated. Did they steal your thunder? Get over it.

[mbaty]

I like how you are pointing out the equally ego-based arguments of atheists; I don't think you go far enough, though. Neither atheism or any single religion has the complete answer, and the vast majority of people would not believe in "god" unless there was some intuitive knowing behind this. Atheism fails to recognize that subjective experience is, many times, all the proof someone needs, and that any athiest, if confronted with an "angel" or a "spirit" or otherwise had a profound "spiritual" experience, the walls of reality would come tumbling down. But isn't that the point? Isn't the point of being an athiest to discover What Is So rather than What "They" Want You To Believe? Or is it just about throwing the whole "god" thing out along with anything associated with it? Life doesn't stop at the physical world or what our senses and instruments can perceive, and spirituality and science are as linked as space and time, ultimately inseperable. But unless we are willing to give up all ideas about What Is So then we will not discover the advantages of knowing, truly, What Is Real.

[Pneumaticus]

The bottom line is there are no gods, goddesses, angels, devils, heaven or hell, except in real life, and they are real people playing those parts for their own fun and profit. What's most frightening is that apparently most people don't seem to get it. As a result, civil society has little hope of separating church from state, much less religion from science, and so will remain haplessly uncivilized. In the end, Armageddon will be strictly man made... and over what? God? Give me a break, or better yet, a joint.

[JamesRedford]

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 the below resources:

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 univere'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.

[research]

I asked a different question then "is there a god". I asked what is it that so many people find in religion?

That is how I come to the collective consciousness as what the religions are trying to explain.

[RussAbbott]

Great post. But I suspect that it will take some time for your notion of practical realism to be understood by a broad popular audience.

Also, it might be more effective not to attempt to define or redefine the word "religion.­" The term has connotations for most people. Your definition may be useful, but attempting to get people to throw out their long-held understanding of a word and replace it with another -- especially people who are not used to doing that sort of thing -- is taking on a very difficult challenge.

My own definition of religion, in fact, is not the same as yours. Even though I too am an atheist, I think that the religious impulse is an attempt to explore some of the deepest recesses of subjective experience. It strikes me that what people seek in religion -- especially those who are serious about it and honest with themselves -- is a subjective sense of connection with something that feels fundamental. From that perspective, it's not about beliefs at all. It's about subjective experience.

[Doofus]

You're an atheist. I'm an atheist. Do I need
you to tell me how to be one? No. I've worked
it out already.

Are you trying to provide 'aid & comfort', make
us feel better about our sad & wan selves? If so,
the Brights are already doing that, or trying to.

http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/dennett_nyt_article.html

As some have said, if you want to sell a book, then sell a book.

Otherwise, please go antagonize some Believers.

You're preaching to the choir, bro'.

[NormDoering]

research wrote:
"I go for the collective consciousness theory of spirituality myself. According to neural network theory : we are all one mind, one soul."

I think you've been reading too much Deepak Chopra because whatever you're talking about it is not conventional neural network theory. There is no soul in neural net theory.