Atheism as a Stealth Religion

In today's polarized world, the conflict between atheism and religion is shaping up to be the fight of the century. In this corner, the new atheists, flexing their muscles with books such as God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. In that corner, the religious fundamentalists, who are responsible for 9/11, the Christian takeover of America, polluting the minds of their children, and numberless other atrocities. It's science and reason against dogmatism and blind faith, making it obvious who the enlightened liberal should root for.

Well, not quite. The truly enlightened liberal should experience a twinge of doubt about the very blackness and whiteness of it. Let me show you how a bit of evolutionary thinking can paint a more interesting picture in shades of gray.

The new atheists hate religion for causing between-group conflict and especially for its wanton disregard of the canons of rational thought. Yet, both of these problems extend far more widely than religion. Between-group conflict pervades the animal world. Ant colonies, lion prides, and chimp troops don't have religion, but they do have between-group conflict. As for the canons of rational thought, to the extent that brains evolved by natural selection, their main purpose is to cause organisms to behave adaptively in the real world--not to directly represent the real world.

This leads to a crucial distinction between what I call factual and practical realism. Consider Hans and Igor, who are mortal enemies. Hans understands that Igor is much like himself, even to the point of competing for the same square of ground. Igor regards Hans as an inhuman monster, completely unlike himself. If Igor's belief makes him fight with greater determination, then it counts as practically realistic, even if it is factually incorrect. Now imagine similar contests among beliefs--and the brains that create beliefs--taking place over thousands of generations of genetic and cultural evolution. Voila! We arrive at a conception of human mentality that is far more nuanced and interesting than the black-and-white cartoon of atheism vs. religion.

Factual and practical realism are not always at odds. To pick an obvious example, a hunter needs to know the exact location of his quarry. The point is that the relationship between the two is complex and that our minds are prepared to massively depart from factual realism, when necessary, in ways that motivate effective action. This is not a sign of mental weakness but a time-tested survival strategy. Moreover, adaptive fictions are not restricted to religions. Patriotic histories of nations have the same distorted and purpose-driven quality as religions, a fact that becomes obvious as soon as we consider the histories of nations other than our own. Intellectual movements such as feminism and postmodernism are often shamelessly open about yoking acceptable truths to perceived consequences. That's what it means to be politically correct. Scientific theories are not immune. Many scientific theories of the past become weirdly implausible with the passage of time, just like religions. When this happens, they are often revealed as not just wrong but as purpose-driven. Scientific theories cannot be expected to approximate factual reality when they are proposed, but only after they have been winnowed by empirical evidence.

These and other belief systems are not classified as religions because they don't invoke supernatural agents, but they are just like religions when they sacrifice factual realism on the altar of practical realism. The presence or absence of supernatural agents--a particular departure from factual realism--is just a detail. It is humbling to contemplate that the concerns typically voiced about religion need to be extended to virtually all forms of human thought. If anything, non-religious belief systems are a greater cause for concern because they do a better job of masquerading as factual reality. Call them stealth religions.

That brings us back to atheism. The discerning liberal (or any intellectual) would be a fool to assume that atheism stands for pure reason, just because it doesn't invoke the gods. We need to give atheism a good hard look to see if it is functioning as a stealth religion. Fortunately, basic design principles enable us to do just that.

The real world is full of messy trade-offs. When behaviors are evaluated for their effects on self and others, for example, some are good for both (++), or bad for both (--), but many are good for some and bad for others (+- or -+). Any belief system that accurately represents the real world will include examples of all four possibilities. The main purpose of a religion or a stealth religion, however, is not to describe the real world but to motivate a given suite of behaviors. One way to do this is by creating a stylized world without tradeoffs, in which the prescribed behaviors are portrayed as good, good, good for everyone and the prohibited behaviors are portrayed as bad, bad, bad for everyone. Behaviors with mixed effects are absent from the stylized world because they do not clearly tell the believer what to do.

Using this simple method, it is easy to show that fundamentalist religions portray a world without trade-offs, very unlike the real world, which propel the believer along a single path toward glory and away from ruin. Unfortunately, at least some version of atheism fare no better.

As exhibit A, consider Ayn Rand, the new atheist of her day who claimed that her philosophy of Objectivism was based entirely on reason and science. She corrected people who called her an individualist by saying that she was a rationalist. Nevertheless, her philosophy portrays a world without tradeoffs, just like religious fundamentalism. The two belief systems motivate different suites of behavior, of course, but in both cases they stuff the believer, like a human cannonball, into an ideological cannon to be shot in the direction of glory and away from ruin.

The Ayn Rand movement was just like religious fundamentalism in other respects. Rand was treated as an infallible oracle--the very opposite of reasoned discourse--and members of the movement spent their time casting out false premises as if they were so many demons. A lifelong smoker, Rand was nevertheless astonished when she contracted lung cancer. How could she get cancer when she had no false premises? She was no more rational about the nature of disease than evangelical Christians lining up to be healed. Even today, Rand's novels sell many thousands of copies a year and the Ayn Rand Institute attempts to lure new members with the following appealing invitation: "Those who have read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged know that the sunlit universe Ayn Rand depicts in her novels is unlike the world that they see around them. How can one achieve the clarity of vision and joyous existence that her fictional heroes achieve?"

How about the new atheism of our day? I wish I could report otherwise, but it has all the hallmarks of a stealth religion, including a polarized belief system that represents everything as good, good, good or bad, bad, bad ("how religion poisons everything"), the unquestioned authority of its leaders, and even the portrayal of bad ideas as like demons (parasitic memes) that need to be cast out ("breaking the spell").

One purpose of this blog is to act as a portal for those who like to roll up their sleeves and get dirty with the details. Both I and Michael Shermer, the intrepid editor of Skeptic magazine, have written about Ayn Rand as a stealth-religious zealot in our respective books, Evolution for Everyone and Why People Believe Weird Things. I have critiqued two books by the new atheists (Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell and Richard Dawkins The God Delusion) at length elsewhere. I am also involved in the establishment of evolutionary religious studies as an authentic scientific discipline. One reason that I am passionate about exposing the new atheism as a stealth religion is because it distracts attention from something far more important and interesting--the proper study of religion and all forms of human mentality from an evolutionary perspective.

Finally, the fact that factual realism tends to be subservient to practical realism is a statement about how the mind works, not about how modern beliefs systems should be. We need respect for factual realism as never before to arrive at practical solutions to life's complicated problems. Evolutionary theory tells us that this objective doesn't come naturally and that some clever social engineering will be required, much as enduring religions manage to expand the circle of cooperation more widely than the tiny social groups of our ancestral past. The new atheists will need to display a virtue typically associated with religion--humility--if they wish to join this enterprise.

Comments

[Wilburrr]

HEY SPORTSFANS! A few observations:

1) There is no "Scientific Method." Check out the article in the December "Science Scope" published by the National Science Teachers Association. You will not find a reference to 'Scientific Method' published in the National Science Education Standards either, for exactly the same reason.

2) There is Biblical evidence for evolution. Check out Exodus chapter 10. Those locusts sound like they evolved to me. The sequence of life development in Genesis is very close to scientific evidence..­. only need to tweek the part where light came after plants... but not bad for an oral history of ??? hundreds of years before it was written? (Sorry-- I know some of you believe the Bible is the word of God...)

3) I reject the notion that religion cannot coexist with science. They address different issues; one deals with an observable, natural world/universe and the other lies in a realm beyond that.

That's my two cent's.. now I'll put on my Nomex suit....

[Norge]

My cousin last year finally secumed to breast cancer after a prolonged illness.
We were close and through the years often discussed the consequences of departure through the final door. That great unknown and unknownable.

All the rational talk, logic, reasoning, in the end is personally of little worth when departing from loved ones and meeting the absolute of absolutes.

What remains is Hope, that somewhere, somehow at some plane we will meet again. And as it has been for me it is for others whom I know who have said their last farwells to loved ones.
We humans know the absoluteness of birth and the absolutness of the final door. All inbetween is potential and for the most part, subjective. Each in their own way must come to terms with that final moment within these realms and perhaps they will pass this way again at another time, on a different plane.

[drblack]

A free country, which I wholeheartedly support and hope that the USA will finally become, cannot restrict religion or condone its use as a determiner of public policy.
If people choose to use superstition , or faith as some call it in their personal lives that is fine.
It is when superstition is used to determine public policy that religion is dangerous.
The reason for the backlash from those who use the scientific method ,those who some incorrectly call atheists, is this latter use of superstition.

[drblack]

Use of the scientific method, the ONLY method which works when it comes to determining reality, is not a religion.
Rigid Dogma is no way to make decisions.

The scientific method has made modern civilization possible..­.it has made modern civilization. The scientific method works.
Religion is a primitive way of determining what is going on.
Use of the scientific method is not religion.
Do you go to the doctor of the faith healer?

[Frederic]

Are the stories in the religions true (bible etc.)? No. (My atheist position.) To be pious and avoid hell, you are supposed to believe in the impossible, which for me amounts to lying.

God is not necessary to explain anything whatsoever. Therefore the probability of his existence is close to zero.

Is religion useful? Maybe, it depends where, when, to whom, in which respect. (My Agnostic position.)

[Frederic]

Again, the "usefulness" or the origin or the tradition of a religion is mistaken for the truth of its contents. Of course you can argue that religion is essential for tribal coherence (ants, bees, bonobos, humans). That observation is true. But the counter-rational nonsense through which it is represented is NOT true. Mr. Wilson confounds these through all of his article.

Atheism is NOT a religion: It does not posit any "supernatural", or let's simply call it man-made "fancy" stories .

Nature: Everything there is. Everything which is possible through evolution. Things
a priori impossible are neither nature nor "supernature" - the simple aren't, and if they do exist, their original observation was wrong and they are not impossible any more and therefore belong to nature. Lightning once was supernatural. There is no "supernature". 2+2=5 is not supernatural: It is wrong.

Nothing can exist and not exist at the same time.

If under certain conditions a guy walks on water (ice? stones?) it is within nature's possibility. Nature doesn't give up the roots of its existence, like for instance gravity.

"I, personally, am a faithful believer in the Holy Reformed Church of the non-rabbit­-breeders. I am also a heretic and apostate, since I left the religion of the non-pigeon­-breeders, who now harass and even threaten to kill me."

Atheism is NOT a religion.

[amamomofsons]

I agree, although My concern is that religion has way too much power in our government and governments all over the world. Unlike them( the religious)we will never be tax exempt or have a well organized "church" for fear of reprisals in the community. We will always be looked at as people who are not moral or good simply because we do not believe the teachings of our parents.We will always have to concede to various "rules" of various beliefs and we will never be respected in general society. People use their religion as a weapon. We Atheists are afraid in our hearts that we will surely be the oppressed, persecuted and excluded group of the future just as we have been in the past. Free thought is scary to the religious just as their unwillingness to see beyond the superstitious is frightening to us.
Saturday night my husband and I attended a small ( Holiday)dinner party with four couples. One couple was Jewish, one Muslim, one Catholic and us. The conversation was enlightening, respectful, inquisitive and funny. We have known these people for many years and we love them. No conflict no angst no disrespect. It can be done, but as soon as religion seeps into government all bets are off. It's a shame we haven't evolved...­..yes I said evolved...­...further­.

[FogBelter]

Mr. Wilson, I never realized there was a unified theory for atheism. I generally considered it to be a stance for free agents, not yet another organization.

I've pondered atheism for a long time and have decided it is just as arrogant a position on the comprehension of the Universe as being a member of a religion. I settled on considering myself an Apathetic Agnostic.

I view the existence of Man as a Universal Opportunity, not a Universal Necessity. If Earth and all the life on it were to blink out tomorrow I doubt the Universe, as vast and endless as it is, would even notice the disappearance. Man's importance is to Man ... a scary notion.

To think that Man can understand the nature of a God or gods to the point he can comprehend his motivations and desires is absurd. I read once, I think it was in an Israel Regardie book, that "before God created man, man created God." Sounds about right to me.

In order for me to believe that Man can understand the entirety of the Universe and accurately formulate a belief system that captures that knowledge, I would similarly have to believe that a Banana Slug on a Moss Covered Fence in the Santa Cruz Mountains would be able to deliver a lecture on Non-Euclidian Geometry in Urdu at the Osmania University in Hyderabad, India, after first booking it's flight and accommodations on Priceline.

It's a bit of a stretch for me.

[ChristopherLib]

When you call atheism a stealth religion it's fodder for the Christian right. Atheism is not a religion, period. It's the believing in the absense of a deity. Your bashfest of ahtheism is something very disturbing and sad.

Atheism never gets in the way of science, and I don't see how it gets in the way of the study of religions frankly either. Fundamentalist religions are something far different. They prevent someone from thinking, which no form of atheism, not even the most stringent kind, does.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-ˈli-jən
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Just thought I'd stop back by, with the dictionary this time, for those of you without internets, and I still don't see how atheism is a stealth religion..­.Hippie-on­-a-stick(R­) is
a wholly owned franchise of Abraham, Intl.,LLC.

[Shoemoney]

This is why I refer to myself, in the words of the great Todd Snyder, an "evangelical agnostic", since I don't know, and neither do you! However, the fact is that religion and religious beliefs have always been used by those with power to control those without. That fact in and of itself is enough reason for me to reject religious belief as a lifestyle choice.

[LeoMarvin]

I mentioned in a previous comment that I like the evolutionary model for ideation summarized in this blog post. If Dr. Wilson is reading these comments, I do, however have one question: What sort of testable predictions does the model generate, or how is it otherwise falsifiable?

[noodlesoup]

The author engages in sloppy reasoning and uses a straw man to make his point. Which I assume is that he finds religious fundamentalism odious but also feels that his own religious beliefs are threatened by atheism. There also appears, from both the article and many posts, to be confusion over what it is being described. According to several post, atheism is the rejection of a supernatural deity or deities. This leaves open a variety of other options. These five come to mind:

[1] Rejection of God/Allah/­Hindu-deit­ies but acceptance of other supernaturalist beliefs such as ghosts, souls, reincarnation, demons, voodoo, etc.

[2] Rejection of all supernaturalist beliefs including God/Allah/­Hindu-deit­ies as well as ghosts, souls, voodoo, etc.

[3] Rejection of God/Allah/­Hindu-deit­ies but acceptance of other philosophies and ideologies such as Humanism, Randian Objectivism, Libertarianism and Marxism (both utopianist ideologies).

[4] Rejection of God/Allah/­Hindu-deit­ies but acceptance of non-supernaturalist beliefs that are not supported by facts and are simply personal fantasy such as a giant North American primate, space aliens making crop circles, and mysterious mind powers.

[5] Rejection of all supernaturalist beliefs, rejection of philosophies and ideologies, and rejection of objects of personal fantasy.

===============

[elkabong]

You might solve some problems by coining a new word: Antitheism

[Norge]

I enjoyed reading your post. You brought a number of fine points.

Another is, the complexity and vastness of the cosmos is so........­.., we should use a bit more time on being glad we are actually alive and experiencing a few moments in it's infinite awesomeness.

For people to deny God or other supernatural existances is as foolish as denying the existance of radio waves, ultraviolet waves or any of that which is not observable for humans. The cosmos and it's countless universes holds that which is totally uncomprehencable to human kind. In comparison to the cosmos, human development is on the bacterial level and even bacteria is billions of years older.

Humans should just be thankfull they have a few moments.