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

[ggdwill]

Here are some "factual truths" that have some value as "practical truths": How about the fact that man's behavior is not merely the latest reflexive motion in some evolutionary tidal wave; but that evolution has made him concious. How about the fact that his conciousness is conceptual in nature. How about the fact that man, in order to survive long-term, must use his power of conceptualization to develop ideas that have long-term application and long-term consequences. Things like, oh, I don't know, coherent, non-contradictory philosophical and moral principles.

[GoodwithWood]

So if the world insists on changing the meaning of the word atheist then what word do I use?
It’s funny that if there was not such a majority of god worshipers then there would be no need for a non- god worshiping word. Can you imagine faith-heads calling themselves “Arationalists”?
A new word to identify me as a non believer would only get attacked by the same spinners. Same people who have managed to some how make the word “Liberal” a dirty word. So now liberals are calling themselves “Progressives”. They caved in to the faith machine.
How about if I do the Prince thing and use a symbol “The human formally known as an atheist”? The symbol would be the back of my hand raised to your face with all fingers in a fist but the center one.
GWW

[GoodwithWood]

Ok. To be fair I just looked it up on some respectable on-line dictionaries (not wikpedia) and there seems to be no consensus on wether it is a disbelief or an out right claim of non existence. I’ve always thought of the meaning that my Encarta proclaims to be my own definition.
Most of this thread seems to be an argument about the definition of words. The whole thing would be much easier if we all could agree on definitions before the debate.

So when I make the statement that I’m an atheist, then “atheist” is what I understand the meaning of that word to be . But then along comes somebody else that understands the word differently and according to them they know better what I think and believe than I do. I can explain to them that this word means this or that but they still insist that what I believe is what their own interpretation of that word is. It’s like they are claiming god like powers to know me better than I.
I’m willing to wager that there isn’t a single atheist posting here that makes the absolute claim that there is no deities. I’ve read the many atheist books making the best sellers list these days and not a one of them claims to know any absolute truths about a higher power.

GWW

[GoodwithWood]

"Don't Make the same mistake twice!"

To suggest that someone not make the same mistake twice seems to indicate three mistakes, doesn't it?

First you make the mistake. Then you make the same mistake.

Then you make the same mistake twice.

If you simply say, 'Don't make the same mistake,' you'll avoid the first mistake.

[LeoMarvin]

I don't practice a religion, and I don't have a dog in the fight between some atheists and some believers. But I do think this article gives substance to a better way of thinking about the "sides" in such public debates. Rather than the conventional atheist/believer or similar Coke/Pepsi dualities, I think the more important divide is that between those on both sides who are certain beyond reason and who think they know the agenda motivating their opponents to pretend they believe such patently ridiculous ideas, and those of us on both sides who believe reasonable people can differ. It's why even though much of my political philosophy is to the left of any Democratic candidate, I call myself a moderate liberal. To me, moderate is a measure of attitude, not ideology.

[GoodwithWood]

From my Encarta Dictionary

A-the-ism : n Disbelief in the existence of God or deities [Late 16C. French atheisme < Greek atheos “godless” < theos “god”]

A-the-ist : n Somebody who does not believe in God or deities

A-the-is-tic, a-the-is-ti-cal, a-the-is-ti-cal-l: adj relating to or characteristic of atheist or atheism.


This is everything my dictionary says about it. There are no 2nd or 3rd meanings.

So class, after recess, anybody who uses the word “atheism” in any way other than it’s defined meaning will be sitting in the corner with Davey Wilson wearing a dunts cap.

Class dismissed.

[factanonverba]

I agree with Jared Diamond that we are but a third species of chimpanzee sharing with chimps and bonobos 96 point something percent of our DNA. And while I do find the life's work of some saints, such as Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce, show that the Christian beliefs have been capable of undoing great evil. But it is not also true that the Bible allows slavery and that the Christian religion, something also shared with Islam, allows slavery to flourish? That human slavery exists today is hard to fathom but it does and often under the cover of religious practice. How many atheists would ever make a claim to hold another human being in bondage? You might reply that Stalin, Mao among others were atheists and that they murdered millions. No doubt, but these are hardly products of the European Enlightenment. It is in this rich period that rationalism began to gain in political and social discourse. It may surprise most Americans to learn that when Republicans such as Alan Keyes talk about the country being founded as a Christian state they are sort of twisting the truth, it sort of depends when you hold America to have been founded. Are we talking the Puritans and other Dissenters or are we talking Jefferson and Franklin? Jefferson in his campaign for President in 1800 was called an infidel for not believing in the Great Deluge and it is pretty clear that he was instrumental along with Madison in establishing both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The Massachusetts Bay Colony, Connecticut and all the colonies south from Virginia had established state religions. Pennsylvania was the first to be non-denominational though it was predominately Quaker. That Anabaptists chose to settle in Lancaster country is no accident. It is was the freedom to follow a conscience that brought them to these shores. The South severed ties to the Anglican Church after the Revolutionary War.

[larstein]

All dogmatism - atheism, fundamentalism of any kind, idolatry of icons or books (the Bible) - is a mental disorder, a disease of the mind which needs to define and judge in order to create an excuse for the ego to locate its paranoia in that which is "other" than itself. The philosophy of any rational being must include the statement "I don't know." Without doubt there is no growth, no discovery, no suspense, no curiosity, and no possibility for anything other than a mind frozen in the excrement of its own arrogance. Having said that, I find atheism to be the most benign, and the easiest to cure. Love and a little lsd will turn any die hard into a doubter in little less than a day.

I have learned to enjoy my beliefs, because I don't necessarily believe them. They exist in my mind as either plausible aesthetic explanations or imaginative possibilities on the road to discovery. The joy of discovery is really the only road to go down. The rest is nonsense.

However, given a choice between the atheist vision of post-mortem existence and the infinite possibilities of an afterlife I can think up, I'll go with my own imagination every time. You atheists got nuthin!

[bigtimepatriot]

"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"

Let me rephrase your agrument with a differents subject, "let's not worry about hygiene, it distracts from the more important and interesting study of infectious diseases"

I think the study of religion from an evolutionary perspective is a fascinating subject, I just don't believe its an excuse to blame atheists for addressing a different fascinating subject, why don't people recognize that not all belief systems are equal, that some are more rational (being human none may be entirely rational) than others.

I think the author appears to be confusing a belief (atheism) with a religion. If an Atheist believes that there is no god and tries to educate others or tries not to have to deal with propaganda that he or she believes is superstition, they are not acting "religious" but they are acting according to their "beliefs".

If beliefs are just "stealth religions" why don't you rail against the "stealth religion" of the law of gravity?

[martinchill]

WORD HISTORY
An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a–, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnōsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things”; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectu­als—“ists,­” as he called them—who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

http://www.answers.com/agnostic&r=67

[cognate]

The argument should more properly be about the nature of God, i.e., is God anthropomorphic or not?

Based on everything we experience with our senses, what's more plausible: Santa Claus or an Idle God?

[GoodwithWood]

From my Encarta Dictionary

A-the-ism : n Disbelief in the existence of God or deities [Late 16C.

[TimN]

Excellent article Mr. Wilson,

Another with a similar theme.


http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html?tw=wn_index_1

Battle of the New Atheism
By Gary Wolf
Oct, 23, 2006

The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking.

Three writers have sounded this call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. A few months ago, I set out to talk with them. I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith.

...

Socrates is a reminder that there are certain actors in history who change the world by staging their own defeat.

...

All critics of fundamental values, even those who have no magical beliefs, will find themselves tempted to retrace this path. Dawkins' tense rhetoric of moral choice, Harris' vision of apocalypse, their contempt for liberals, the invocation of slavery -- this is not the language of intellectual debate but of prophecy.

...

[Sam] Harris veils his academic affiliation and hometown because he fears for his physical safety. But in truth, the cultural neighborhoods where they live and work bear little resemblance to Italy under Pope Urban VIII, or New England in the 17th century, or Saudi Arabia today.

...

When prophets provoke real trouble, bring confusion to society by sowing reverberant doubts, spark an active, opposing consensus everywhere -- that is the sign they've hit a nerve. But what happens when they don't hit a nerve? There are plenty of would-be prophets in the world, vainly peddling their provocative claims. Most of them just end up lecturing to undergraduates, or leading little Christian sects, or getting into Wikipedia edit wars, or boring their friends. An unsuccessful prophet is not a martyr, but a sort of clown.

.

[TimN]

...

The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold. Given all the religious trauma in the world, I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.

[priscianusjr]

Most of the pro-atheist comments here actually corroborate your point.