Rise of the new atheists

[rug]

Should non-believers make an alliance with religious progressives?

Monday, Jul 30, 2012 11:15 AM EDT
By Adam Lee

In the last two decades, and with relatively little notice, a demographic change has been occurring across America that has seismic implications for the future of our politics. Quietly, without much fuss, but with historically unprecedented speed, the number of atheists in this country is booming.

In 1990, the percentage of American adults who professed no religion in surveys stood at 8 percent. But by 2001, that number had almost doubled to 14 percent of the population, or about one in every seven people. Now, the most recent polls are finding even higher numbers: the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) found 15 percent, the 2010 General Social Survey found 18 percent, and a Pew Research survey from late 2011 reported 19 percent, an all-time high-water mark. Throughout this same time period, all the country’s largest religions reported membership that was either flat or declining. And since the upcoming generation, the so-called Millennials, is both the biggest and the least religious generation in American history, this trend is poised to accelerate in the decades ahead.

The usual response is that this trend may represent a falling away from organized religion, but not necessarily a receding of faith per se. After all, a person could still believe in God without choosing to identify with any church in particular. This is surely true of some of the “Nones,” but not all of them, and probably far fewer of them than you might think.

The 2008 ARIS, for example, found that those who explicitly identify as atheist or agnostic make up 1.6 percent of America’s population, or about 3.5 million people. This alone would be more than the number of Jews or Muslims in America, and about the same as the number of Mormons. However, the ARIS didn’t stop there: the researchers also asked more in-depth questions about the respondents’ beliefs. What they found is that whether they choose those words to describe themselves or not, 12 percent of Americans are atheist or agnostic, professing no belief in a supernatural power. This is about as many people as all the mainline Protestant churches — Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and United Church of Christ — combined.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/30/should_atheists_make_an_alliance_with_religious_progressives/

[longship]

1. Great post and read.

He also delves into a very important argument I have often read and heard.

Second, and probably more controversial, the New Atheists argue that moderate religion enables and strengthens fundamentalist religion. Even when they don’t endorse the specific beliefs of fundamentalists, religious moderates and liberals endorse the general worldview that faith is a virtue, that the Bible should be the basis for our morality, and that obeying what one believes to be God’s will is a sufficient basis for decision-making. We assert that all these beliefs are disastrous, that accepting them leaves one with no real defense against the siren song of aggressive fundamentalism.

His conclusions on this question are, to me, the most well thought out I have seen, with the take away being that by criticizing religion, atheists counter the most extreme religions which may help the liberal religions.

Indeed, let's have these dialogs here, too (as we are).

R&K

[ellenfl]

2. kick for later. eom

[cleanhippie]

3. "Nevertheless, some religious progressives have greeted the New Atheism with less than open arms."

Nevertheless, some religious progressives have greeted the New Atheism with less than open arms. For instance, this recent column by James Rohrer inveighs against “militant secularists” who “employ derogatory language” to talk about religion. Like many liberal critics, he accuses the New Atheists of being too sweeping and too indiscriminate in our attacks, and chides us that we should learn to cooperate with moderate religious people rather than arguing against them.

Now, I believe that American atheists can and should make alliances with religious progressives to advance causes on which we agree (and we’ve done just that, such as with the secular charity Foundation Beyond Belief’s “Challenge the Gap” program). But we can do that without surrendering our right to criticize them in areas where we disagree. To insist on anything else is to insist that any alliance between us must be founded on religious supremacy and atheist subservience. Given the numbers that atheists can bring to the table, this would be foolish and arrogant.

[trotsky]

4. I was quite impressed by those paragraphs, too.

I hope more people read them.

[cleanhippie]

5. Thats why I posted them.

I KNOW some here will read them, but will they get it? I doubt it.

[humblebum]

6. They might get it, but that doesn't mean they will agree.

As long as many new atheists exhort ridicule and blatant disrespect as a method of operation, no group should support such behavior.

[Goblinmonger]

7. "Many"?

Let's have the list.

[humblebum]

8. Don't make me laugh. nt

[dimbear]

9. For some ridicule, disrespect and sarcasm read the Book of Micah.

The rulers of the day told him to sit down and shut up; I imagine you agree.

[humblebum]

10. No one is telling anyone to sit down and shut up. However,

it's my right not to agree with or support a position just because I'm told to.

[dimbear]

12. I certainly agree with you there.

There's a quality about religious disputes that brings out the tendency to sarcasm and ridicule. It's an enormous influence in the part of the Bible called the Prophets, and lo and behold, when I go to current theology boards, there it is again. Doesn't seem likely to go away.

Plus it can be fun.

Doesn't seem likely anybody is going to disarm.

[humblebum]

14. I don't think you were trying to tell me that Micah was an atheist. Were you? nt

[dimbear]

15. No. An adept at sarcasm. It goes with the territory we're on.

At least that's my experience. Interchanges between theologians are often very acerbic.

Micah was sarcastic, hated by the authorities, and yet somehow got things done. Micah was a believer, of course.

We nonbelievers deserve the same latitude.

Whether we get things done is to be determined.

[humblebum]

17. Then perhaps you should listen to Micah. nt

[2ndAmForComputers]

11. I count as my ally every religious progressive

who isn't a dick.

[dimbear]

13. Same here. Doesn't mean we can't have some interesting discussions here. Later

the beer summit and then the serious getting Obama re-elected stuff.

[cbayer]

18. I count as my ally every atheist who isn't a dick.

[Evoman]

16. Rise of the New Atheists.....Muahahahahaha

That would be a great title for a horror movie.

In a movie announcer voice:

*In a world....where religion is safety and there is no theological debate....one man would open the gate....To.....Pure.....EVIL. From the writers of The Gay Invasion comes a new film that will scare you to your core. There is no where for religion to go, no place for theology to hide when the Atheists finally take their dark stand. Will you run or stay and fight in response to....The Rise of The New Atheists. Playing at select theaters.*

[cbayer]

19. Excellent!

[humblebum]

20. It would be a remake of old atheism.

Nothing really new about it. Same plot, different stars.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Yes. Of course. Stalin = Dawkins.

[humblebum]

28. You definitely have a thing for Stalin, don't you?

More like Alexander Oparin = Dawkins

[2ndAmForComputers]

29. I had to look up that Russian gentleman you speak of. I'm impressed.

I was expecting he was a quack like Lysenko. He was not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Oparin

[humblebum]

30. He held many ideas in common with Dawkins. nt

[Curmudgeoness]

22. Should religious progressives make an alliance with non-believers?

This swings both ways. When we are talking about the numbers shown in the article, it seems that religious progressives should be seeking out non-believers. The non-believer segment is growing---I am sure due to the Fundamentalist Christians who are so inflexible that they are turning people off.

I do not think that either side, if they are progressives, have fundamental problems with the other. At least in my mind, a progressive would have a live and let live attitude toward others with differing views.

[cbayer]

23. I feel strongly that religious progressives and non-believers need to form alliances

to support causes on which they share common ground. The most important foes which need to be confronted by these alliances are within the religious right, particularly when they try to influence law and policy.

I see more evidence of coalitions and expect to see even more in the near future.

[Curmudgeoness]

24. I know for a fact that these alliances do occur

on other topics not related to religion. And that is a good thing because we really are all aiming at the same target. I do think that the religious right is the driving force behind an exodus from religion, and religious progressives have to separate themselves.

My wish for the future is that believers and non-believers can come together on the role of religion too. As a former believer who is no longer a believer, I was taught that your religion is a personal thing....you are free to pray whenever and wherever you want, but you do it silently and without attracting attention. You have your beliefs, but you don't try to push them on others. You live a life where people will know by your actions, not your proclamations, that you believe. And I don't see where that should have changed since I was young---but it seems to have changed.

I respect others to have their beliefs, but I want to be respected for mine. That really isn't too much to ask.

[cbayer]

25. I agree with everything you say here, Curmudgeoness.

[Curmudgeoness]

26. I'm glad, because this is important.

So, is the world going to end now?

[cbayer]

27. Why would it end?

[YankeyMCC]

31. Isn't that the fundamental point

or benefit of a secular society?

Yes, people should work together to promote secular values, policies and programs that improve everyone's lives.

[MooseTrax]

32. Tell Me Something...............

............or answer this:

Does that mean the priests and bishops won't be getting as much young "pud?"