Why atheism can't replace religion

[Abyssinia]

This post is a response to Why Atheism Will Replace Religion by Nigel Barber, Ph.D.

In a widely read and commented upon post, Nigel Barber examines some of the evidence and trends related to atheism and the decline of religion. Barber closes his thought-provoking post with the following:

“The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people’s daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs.”

It is true that much of the developed world lives in not only a post-Christian, but a post-religious society in many ways. And it is true that many people have turned to religion because of economic uncertainty or emotional challenges. They still do, in fact.

However, for many people, religion is not merely a way to deal with fear, uncertainty, and emotional difficulties. In my experience, many people follow a particular religious way of life because they believe that it is true. The problem with a market-based analysis of the future of religion, as well as the market-based practices present in many contemporary religious communities, is that religion at its best is not a consumer product. Rather, at its best religious faith calls for sacrifice, unselfishness, love, and a willingness to remove oneself from the center of the universe, so to speak. In order to be willling to live in such a way, a self-centered market-based approach to religion will not do. Rather, one must believe that she is living in a way that is consistent with reality in order to motivate an unselfish approach to life.

It is also unclear how atheism is positioned to replace religion, in the following way. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. But this, in and of itself, cannot form the foundation for a way of life. Only by forming and practicing positive beliefs and values can one build a coherent and meaningful life. So if something is to replace religion, it will not be atheism. Perhaps some form of secular humanism will accomplish this task. But here we run into another problem, namely, that human beings long for transcendence of some sort, as shown by the presence and prevalence of religious belief throughout cultures across time.

On this topic, Barber claims that sports can replace religion. In one sense, I think he is right. The loyalty, community-identification, and limited transcendence of the experiences related to sports do fuflill many of the functions of religion for many people. However–and I am a passionate sports fan and participant–at the end of the day sports are incapable of doing the work needed to provide sufficient meaning, transcendence, and fulfillment in life. But even if sport can do this to some degree, the view that sport is replacing religion fails to notice that religion should not be approached as a consumer good.

Lastly, we should be very grateful for the powerful psychopharmacological substances which can make life better for many of us. However, we must remember that religion is not merely about making my life better. Religion at its best is about making me better, and a better contributor to the common good. In closing, I think the reports of the impending death and replacement of religion with atheism are greatly exaggerated.

psychologytoday.com/blog/ethics-everyone/201012/why-atheism-cant-replace-religion

 

[Darryl1958]

Animals lives are dictated by instinct. Their will to live is purely based on the physiology and genetic programming of the animal.

Men on the other hand live according to reason. Sports, pharmacopoeia, electronic diversions, and economic security may well make life comfortable enough.

But in and of themselves they are pretty silly reasons for the great effort that life takes.

Material comforts and diversions, the ‘bread and circus’ of ancient Rome proved not to be sufficient for the Romans. Christianity itself arose in the spiritual void of that philosophy. History itself therefore indicates that the New Rome will require more than bread and circuses too.

 

[stephe1987]

Atheistic societies have been tried and have failed. The Soviet Union had serious problems, murdered hundreds of millions of Christians (people should have the right to practice religion), and eventually they collapsed. Atheists in general have a poor grasp of history, blame religion for everything (only something like 13% of recent wars had anything to do with religion… the people just happened to be of different faiths but that wasn’t what the war was about), and need to review what happened in the 20th century if they think atheism will bring happiness.

These people also don’t seem to understand what religion is. Yes, it is faith, but it also gives people a sense of community that is seriously lacking. Nobody knows their neighbors anymore, and being part of a community would also help with networking. Religious people, or people who were raised with religion but later left, also tend to be far more charitable than those who were raised as atheists. Christians also place higher value on things like forgiveness. How many atheist organizations are there dedicated to helping the poor and needy? It’s all Christians and government, at least where I live.

Atheists also call for a bigger government to solve society’s problems. In theory, that would be fine, but the government will end up taking a huge portion of everyone’s money and will put it toward causes that not everyone agrees with, as well as unethical practices. This is why people giving money to the parish of their choice is better: more control over their money. Of course, with less people going to church less is given to the poor.

The present government is also very corrupt and I don’t see that changing any time soon. The more powerful the government gets, the worse things get. They have taken over things such as marriage, divorce, and families and now there are many kids who don’t know their fathers. Divorce creates troubled teens, especially girls who get their periods sooner if they live with a non-biological father, and kids are more likely to turn to drugs and sexual rebellion. Gay “marriage” will make it so a new child is created who will never know one or both of his/her parents. Kids today have an increase in drugs and teen pregnancy, and it will only get worse.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Great response.

I would add the obvious point that atheism is a religion. It is a belief system that makes a claim about the existence of supernatural beings, namely, that they do not exist. Just as the theistic counterclaim that they do, the atheist’s claim is based at least in part on faith because it is not falsifiable. That is why atheists stole Brother Occam’s razor; they can’t prove their claim with evidence, so they say they win (only) because their version of reality is simpler; this is a subjective ipse dixit and nothing more. Also, they demand all the legal protections of a religion while claiming not to be a religion, much like L. Ron Hubbard.

But perhaps more importantly, the New Atheists fail to understand that religion, sociology, culture and especially government are one interrelated ball of wax.

If there is no God, and all men are equal, then the only authority is the individual man. This is anarchy. So to form a government, men form a collective called the state. Now there are two authorities: the state and the man. Given atheism, the state will always have a superior authority to the man; in fact the man has no rights at all except those the state gives him. There may be some “declaration of human rights,” but the declarer is the state, and what the state gives the state can take away. This is communism.

In order to have a functioning democracy, there must be a check on the state other than the collective of men, which is the state itself. Thus there must be an authority superior to the state, namely, God. Read the United States Declaration of Independence; the whole document is a treatise on the fact that rights derived from God are inalienable—they cannot be abridged by the state—and thus superior to those of the state. All of the building blocks of democracy, such as private property, depend on the freedom from state interference that is provided by these inalienable rights. Take away God and the rights are no longer inalienable.

That is why there are no “secular democracies.” Every modern democracy has God in its founding documents and/or engages in state funding of religion. Atheists talk about the superiority of “secular democracy” when no such thing exists; it is their invisible pink unicorn.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Great response.

I would add the obvious point that atheism is a religion. It is a belief system that makes a claim about the existence of supernatural beings, namely, that they do not exist. Just as the theistic counterclaim that they do, the atheist’s claim is based at least in part on faith because it is not falsifiable. That is why atheists stole Brother Occam’s razor; they can’t prove their claim with evidence, so they say they win (only) because their version of reality is simpler; this is a subjective ipse dixit and nothing more. Also, they demand all the legal protections of a religion while claiming not to be a religion, much like L. Ron Hubbard.

But perhaps more importantly, the New Atheists fail to understand that religion, sociology, culture and especially government are one interrelated ball of wax.

If there is no God, and all men are equal, then the only authority is the individual man. This is anarchy. So to form a government, men form a collective called the state. Now there are two authorities: the state and the man. Given atheism, the state will always have a superior authority to the man; in fact the man has no rights at all except those the state gives him. There may be some “declaration of human rights,” but the declarer is the state, and what the state gives the state can take away. This is communism.

In order to have a functioning democracy, there must be a check on the state other than the collective of men, which is the state itself. Thus there must be an authority superior to the state, namely, God. Read the United States Declaration of Independence; the whole document is a treatise on the fact that rights derived from God are inalienable—they cannot be abridged by the state—and thus superior to those of the state. All of the building blocks of democracy, such as private property, depend on the freedom from state interference that is provided by these inalienable rights. Take away God and the rights are no longer inalienable.

That is why there are no “secular democracies.” Every modern democracy has God in its founding documents and/or engages in state funding of religion. Atheists talk about the superiority of “secular democracy” when no such thing exists; it is their invisible pink unicorn.

I love your signature man.

To everyone I also think Atheism is a religion.

I also must apologize I have not read all the posts on this thread I’m dizzy, stuffed up, head ten feet round, because I’ve caught some bug I’ve had for a couple of days and right now I can’t sleep so I’m just hanging out—so if I post something stupid let me know?

 

[Robert_Bay]

Opinion article, not a news story. Please read the forum rules before posting