Posted by Jim Henderson on: 03.23.2006 /
Atheists Least Trusted Minority in US
This helps explain why Atheists worry…
“American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
Comment by: Daz
1I think the reason atheism has such a bad image is because it hasn’t done well at selling itself. The following is an excerpt from an article by evangelical Alister McGrath (complete link at bottom) and although I find his overall theology somewhat problematic I feel the following excerpt makes some very good points:
“Atheist thinkers are more than happy to appear on the nation’s chat shows to promote their latest books. But they have failed to communicate a compelling vision of atheism that is capable of drawing and holding large numbers of people.
Atheists widely discuss this comprehensive failure of leadership within their circles. Howard Thompson, sometime editor of the Texas Atheist, is undoubtedly one of the most able and reflective atheists in the United States. Thompson has criticized the movement for its lack of direction: “Atheism in America is poorly defined with little organization,” he wrote in an op-ed piece. “We have less social and cultural infrastructure than even the smallest religious groups. . . . Atheism desperately needs effective public voices.”
And why has this failed to happen? Thompson lays much of the blame at the feet of O’Hair, whom he regards as the movement’s greatest liability. He believes her organization has failed to learn from her mistakes and persists in depicting her as a hero, even a martyr, for the atheist cause.
For 30 years O’Hair was the most visible atheist. What O’Hair did and said was atheism to the public, and it was nasty. The disappearance of the O’Hairs in September 1995 gave hope that more positive atheist initiatives might develop. That’s why atheists should worry about the revival of her American Atheists under the leadership of Ellen Johnson, who assumed the office of president in a questionable board of directors meeting. Johnson is also a die-hard O’Hair fan who continues to present her as an atheist heroine. What atheism doesn’t need is a continuation of O’Hair’s negativity; her style and limited vision stifled positive atheist growth.
Her atheism was crude, anti-intellectual, and homophobic, making even the most zealous fundamentalist Christian seem a model of liberal values. For Thompson, the answer is clear: Grow leaders. In another op-ed piece, “The Unlit Bonfire,” Thompson argues that a new dawn awaits—if only the leadership issue can be resolved. “Total victory is the only acceptable goal in a mind-control war because humanity is diminished so long as a single mind remains trapped in superstition by programming or choice.” But who will lead them? And can this goal actually be achieved?
The fatal flaw within Thompson’s argument, found within many other atheist tracts and publications, is his strident insistence that humanity has been enslaved by supernaturalist superstition. It is merely necessary to educate people, he believes, and these mad ideas will fall away. Thompson and his colleagues have not even begun to understand a fundamental fact about religion: People actually like their faith, find it helpful in structuring their lives, and inconveniently believe that it might actually be true.
Thompson’s alternative to the rich fare of a transcendent faith is “a materialistic culture that frees humanity from superstition.” This sounds dull, dated, and gray, about as exciting as a lecture on Bulgarian Marxist dialectics. The failure of atheism to capture the public imagination in the West reflects its failure to articulate a compelling, imaginative vision of a godless future that is capable of exciting people and making them want to gather together to celebrate and proclaim it.
The same dullness pervades the National Secular Society (founded in 1866), the nearest thing Great Britain has to an atheist network. In 2002, its website included a museum of modernity, untroubled by the awkward rise of postmodernity. You could buy a secular mug with the slogan “Just say no to religion!” Or even better, you could download an official Certificate of De-Baptism (medieval font needed) that lets your friends know that you have rejected the “creeds and all other such superstition” in the name of reason.
Rationalism, having quietly died out in most places, still lives on here. Yet Western culture has bypassed this aging little ghetto, having long since recognized the limitations of reason. The Enlightenment lives on for secularists. Atheism is wedded to philosophical modernity, and both are aging gracefully in the cultural equivalent of an old folks’ home.
And, for those who find their tracts wearisome, the society thoughtfully provides a religious jokes page—though in poor taste, they carry a significantly higher intellectual content than the rest of the site. Here’s an example of atheism’s winsome arguments: Question: What’s the difference between Jesus and a painting? Answer: It only takes one nail to hang a painting.
The joke makes my friends outside the church cringe. Yet I have the impression this is actually meant to persuade people of the intellectual and cultural superiority of a world without religion. Thompson clearly has a point.
Nevertheless, serious issues are occasionally debated on the website, including the question of why secular humanism, with its commitment to atheism, has so singularly failed to capture the public imagination. One obvious answer might be the National Secular Society itself, which exudes a pious tedium, trapped in a time warp of the closing decades of the 19th century, that seems almost to have been deliberately designed to alienate potential recruits.
Reginald Le Sueur put his finger unerringly on the real point at issue: “The problem with humanism as such is that, although rational, secular, and ‘true,’ it is, in comparison with major religions, somewhat wishy-washy and just plain unexciting.”
Le Sueur recognizes atheism as derivative, its attraction residing primarily in what it denies rather than what it articulates as an alternative. So does atheism have a future?
No doubt it does—but not an especially distinguished or exciting future. Listen to John Updike: “Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position.” I have to confess that I now share his catatonic sense of utter tedium when I reread some of the atheist works I once found fascinating as a teenager. They now seem simplistic, failing to engage with the complexities of human experience, and seriously out of tune with our postmodern culture.”
complete article at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/21.36.html
Comment by: Ir
2From the article:
To the Christians/followers of Jesus who post here: are the above quotes representative of your views of atheism/atheists? Are they representative of what you hear from other Christians/followers of Jesus?
If you heard someone saying something about atheists/atheism which seemed inaccurate based on your observations/reading, would you point that out to them or would you say nothing about it to them?
Comment by: Stephan
3Ir, to answer your questions, this is probably how I would have seen Atheists before I met all of you here. I honestly don’t have many conversations with other Christians about Atheists, so I don’t know how they would respond.
If I heard inaccurate remarks about Atheists I would most certainly point it out. I have had great conversations at home about this web site, and my nine-year-old son will have a very different perspective of Atheists due to what I have learned here.
Those that I have met here certainly appear to be looking out for the common good. You are very intelligent, articulate people who have come to a different conclusion than I have about the existence and nature of God.
I appreciate all of you and the things I have learned here.
Comment by: Daz
4Guess the technical bugs got fixed. Sorry for any inconvenience (and wasted bandwidth) folks.
Comment by: TXatheist
5Daz,
I’ve heard about her but the atheist perspective seems off from mine.
Atheism is ultimately a worldview of fear—a fear, often merited, of what might happen if religious maniacs were to take over the world.
In the end, debates about whether God’s existence can be proved remain marginal. The central issue is moral and imaginative. The most fundamental criticisms directed against Christianity have to do with the moral character of its God. They often focus on the issue of eternal punishment.
Not just religious maniacs. People still living in the 12th century mentality. Buddhists, progressive xians, liberal hindus, the one progressive muslim they keep locked up, or Joseph Campbell and John Spong are fine, imo.
No atheist says god can be proved either way. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and most atheists say prove it with no reply. I find the bible absolutely contradictory, fabricated and impossible for supernatural events. You have to abandon physics for it to even be feasible. That’s my opinion. Can xianity be used like other philosophies to investigate and learn? Sure can.
Comment by: Marty
6IR - Three months ago I was ignorant about and prejudice against Atheists. It was much like my prejudice against gay people 20 years ago. Then I got to know some gay people and found out how wrong I was - to the point that my wife and I had two gay people serve on our “Clearness Committee” when we were married as Quakers three years ago.
My path to examining my views on Atheists started three months ago when I met an older woman at a Spiritual Retreat grounds - and when we went around the room and told of our religious/spiritual background - she announced that she was an Athiest. I knew of this woman as one of the pilars of our City - a founder of the Community Environmental Council - a major contributor to the good of our community. She started me examining my views - and I started attending the Humanist Society in SB.
But by far the greatest change in my prejudice has come from those Atheists on this board. Although most of us have been a little testy with each other from time to time - some of the Athiests on this board seem almost “Saintly” in their approach and communiciations. This in turn has caused many - if not all of us to take notice of you - listen to and appreciate you - and reasses our prejudices toward you. If this board has drawn me one way or another - it has drawn me toward the Athiests, both because of how they have communicated and the logic of their beliefs - as well as in how some (a minority) of the Christians have communicated - and the absoluteness of their beliefs. I think that some of the Christians who had tended to be strident and absolute have learned from the Atheists - and modified their communications for the better.
I am now examining what is happening to me - and how what I believe can be so influenced by how I perceive the manifestations of the people who believe different beliefs. For many years I have said “If the Dalai Lama is going to Hell and Jerry and Pat are going to Heaven - I am going to learn to love warm climate.”
Comment by: TXatheist
7I just read Marty’s note so this request is now being compromised due to guilt. I’d like to ask the theists if I could get their individual opinion to not be diplomatic tomorrow in my responses. Just one day, no cussing, just blunt answers. If you agree say so, if you don’t say so on an individual basis. Saturday, I’ll be diplomatic again:) imo
Comment by: Siamang
8Marty,
I think it’s a reality that we have a hard time getting our message out, even when the message is just “Hi, we’re normal people who want people to be happy and healthy just like everyone else.”
That and “we don’t eat kittens.”
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
9Ir, it would depend on the setting and context of the discussion. If I am in a setting in which the participants are careful thinkers interested in learning, I would most certainly correct errors in fact and challenge differences in thinking. If I am in a setting in which the participants are interested in intellectual bullying or the parroting of trite comments just for the sake of hearing their sonorous tones echo the halls, then I won’t wast the time.
It applies in the real world; it applies in the virtual world. Sadly, I find there are relatively few of the former and a plethora of the latter in both realms.
I might add, it applies to religion, atheism, politics, economics, etc. I love learning; have long since lost the passion for arguing. If someone can help me learn, let’s engage. Otherwise…Next.
As to the quotes, I scanned the article and didn’t see them so I don’t know the context. The first seems a bit extreme. I have a hard time imagining a context in which I would agree with the “criminal behavior”. OTOH, the “materialism and cultural elitism” do not seem to be an unfair criticism of some of the atheists I know. Of course, they could be applied to some Christians and some members of just about any other demographic too, so, [shrug]…
As to the second quote, “self-interested” seems to apply to a lot of atheists (or other demographic group) while “not concerned with the common good” is probably somewhat less so.
Perhaps the biggest explanatory factor in the second quote is due to the fact that atheists are a vanishingly small demographic. So what they see as “the common good” may be very different than what the average man on the street sees. Newdow and the Pledge being a prime newsmaking example. The public image of atheists in general would probably be a lot better if he sat down and put a sock in it. The vast majority disagree with him, and stridency won’t change that….unless it further hardens it. And if he succeeds it’ll get way worse.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
10Siamang, you’re missing a great taste treat. Of course, they taste just like chicken. ;-)
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
11TX, I’m not sure if I understand what you’re asking. Are you asking if it’s okay, for one day, to not be “nice”? If so, I just want to know when to stay away. I have enough people like that in my life, thank you.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Jayson B.
12speak for yourself.
The biggest problem atheism has in gaining traction with the religious is simple: it’s not a religion. Most atheists are singular, we tend to not congregate as atheists, and it’s not neccessarily a ’cause’ for us to pursue.
If atheism were ever to gain traction, it would NEVER be with attacking god, religion, or jesus. It would be with getting our nation to properly teach children critical thinking skills, something that we completely ignore in education. If we taught that, people would naturally and eventually find that religion isn’t as important as they thought, it’s the people they’re with that are.
Comment by: Marty
13Siamang - I don’t know why Atheists should have to “get their message out.” It is a shame that the image of Atheists has been so shaped by Madeline OHare. How you can “get your message out” - without having people think you are trying to convert them or their kids to Atheism is a big challenge. My sense is that most Atheists just want respect (which we all want, deserve and need) and be left alone to practice their belief that there is no God. It is very similar to how many of these same people (me previously included) feel about the gays. They have some image of gays that they are out to convert their heterosexual kids to becoming gay.
TXatheist - I am interested in (and concerned about) how you will come across in your desire to be blunt. I support you in being open, transparent, straight forward - but - “and I certainly wish you no guilt” - but I for one listen to you and take you in far more in the way you have been communicating for the last many days - versus when you too used a more “testy” form of communications. Think of how things changed on this board when Jim appologized.
There are signs that we collectively (starting with Hemant and Jim) have an opportunity to bring about a new movement, and that movement will flourish and grow from those who are willing to listen to each other, share opennly and non-judmentally their views, and try to put themselves in the others shoes. Whether this possible new movement will/can really catch on will depend upon our respect for one another.
Comment by: cautious
14“Atheists Least Trusted Minority in US”
I always knew I’d win a contest!!!
…seriously I’ve been scared of religious fundamentalists for most of my rational life. Especially after a bunch of them flew planes into some buildings in Manhattan and Arlington. Looking for some positive ideas on that day I thought, hey, maybe America will figure out that fanatical devotion to Invisible Cloud Beings is a bad thing? And that rational heads do prevail? And that maybe a good response to illogic is logic?
And yet here we are five years later and it sounds like more people would rather their daughter marry Osama bin Laden than Michael Newdow.
Is this really a case of bad pr …or…are there other things going on?
…do anarchists do bad on election day because they don’t sell their message well or is it because they want to get rid of government?
Do atheists have little trust because we don’t sell our message or is it because everyone else is told that we’re going to hell?
Comment by: Siamang
15If an atheist volunteers with Habitat for Humanity to try to make things better for a displaced Katrina family, nobody notices. Nobody knows that “an atheist” put others before himself. We do it every day. How many atheist doctors are out there? How many atheist scientists working on vaccines? How many countless firefighters, cops, soldiers?
When a church group does charity, everyone knows. I bet the church members swinging a hammer next to the atheist has no idea that the atheist is an atheist. If they know, they probably think it’s their inherant spiritual nature trying to come through.
But beyond being invisible, or Newdow being strident, you have got to admit, there’s some demonization going on from the pulpit.
We’re demonized when someone like Newdow stands up and fights for something unpopular. Okay fine. Shut him up and you still have a problem.
We’re also demonized every time religious leaders want to complain about ANYTHING they don’t like in society. To the folks with the multi-million dollar megaphone, it’s ME, personally and my family who was responsible for God removing His protection of America on 9/11! “Secularistssssssss” are responsible for moral decline, teenage pregnancy, rap music, etc.
I mean, it took Hemant. HEMANT. One college student here, with a free blog and an EBAY auction and suddenly he’s the national face of atheism. That tells you how small our voice is, right there.
I say that right here, right now we should absolutely start a campaign to get Hemant and Jim invited to the next White House Prayer Breakfast. Because that’s the kind of national access that people of faith have. It’s part of the multi-million dollar megaphone of the pulpit.
We’re invisible, distrusted and disliked. In absentia, because nobody seems to know what we’re really like. They just know the boogyman that pulpit-pounders paint us as.
Comment by: Ir
16That makes sense, Tom.
I agree - I find arguing very tiresome. But I love to learn!
Unless my cut-and-paste function is playing tricks on me, they really are in there :)
Exactly - they aren’t uniquely characteristics of atheists.
Actually, I don’t know that Newdow has particularly worsened the general perception of atheists - given that wasn’t that great before he came on the scene.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
17Cautious (congratulations on winning that contest… ;-P) writes [...seriously I've been scared of religious fundamentalists for most of my rational life.]
I’m a Xian, and I have to say… me, too!
And to answer the original question, I’ve known a lot of really “nice” people who professed to be atheists in the last 25 years, and so I don’t think I ended up with a bad view of them to begin with. But that’s just me.
And on the Newdow thing, I admire that he’s willing to invest his own time and life in something he’s so passionate about, but from what I’ve seen, there are questions as to whether he’s acting on his own behalf or his daughter’s (although I don’t believe everything I hear/read about this anyway). If she really didn’t have a problem with the pledge, then he ends up without a legal leg to stand on, doesn’t he.
But a brilliant guy… I mean, anybody who can manage to be a doctor AND a lawyer… that takes some serious brains, eh? I’d love to meet him.
Comment by: TXatheist
18Tom,
I understand most of the people in your life are xians. I was doing it to make a point. I have been polite when I respond but not direct. I have been pandering to the greater good by not being straight-forward. That’s all I was saying and if you can’t handle it that’s fine.
Comment by: Ir
19This is how I feel about Newdow also.
Plus, I think it’s a valid point that the pledge didn’t have ‘under God’ in it in the first place.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
20Ir,
How true… One of the reasons that even though I’m a Xian, and pretty conservative to be honest, this is not a hot-button issue with me. I also recognize that the founding fathers would have been pretty happy with “under God” NOT being in the pledge, too.
I wonder if Michael Newdow is reading this blog! If so… Hi, Mike!
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
21Ir, to respond to your question in post #3, I don’t see atheists as being any more immoral than anyone else. I also believe that they are as concerned about the common good as anyone else.
Comment by: TXatheist
22Peter,
The original case with Newdow and his daughter was thrown out on that technicality, he didn’t have standing as they say because his daughter wasn’t in his custody but the mother’s. Now, several families in the school district are stepping up and they have legal standing. The case will be challenging for Newdow in my opinion now that Roberts and Alito are on the bench.
Comment by: Eliza
23Does anyone know where the idea comes from that “atheists are a vanishingly small demographic”? Is there reliable data on this? Does it include people who don’t worship any god & consider themselves agnostic? ‘Cuz I don’t think we’re truly that rare. Like Jayson B points out, we don’t congregate, & I know that many of us fly under the radar in real life. We don’t have little symbols we can wear on our lapels or on necklaces, like crosses, to help be recognized - and it’s uncomfortable to “come out” (as an atheist) when people think atheist eat kittens and worship the devil (um, no, that’s not a-theism) and think they need to convince you to correct your erroneous beliefs.
It would be great to have reasonable people feel able to speak out about their beliefs, like the lady who threw Marty for a loop (in a good way!):
I totally agree with Jayson B that
But don’t hold your breath. Critical thinking skills are threatening to the status quo. Europe has done better at this than the U.S., by far, imo.
Comment by: Eliza
24So then I read on and find the answer to my initial questions from Siamang, #81 under “The Moody Church”. And I wasn’t even praying for an answer! ;)
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
25TX, RE: #18, you are mistaken on two counts. First: Most of the people in my life are not Christians. And second: It isn’t my (or anyone else’s) ability to “handle it” that is involved. With the exception of Rick, there’s no one here that I even know. How could anyone possibly say anything that I would take seriously enough to not be able to “handle it”? A bunch of the people don’t even use their names. That says something, huh? And who knows if the rest are real names?
No, the reason is that I don’t need to look for unpleasantness. If you relish it I have no objection, I just don’t feel the need, nay the desire.
When I was younger I thought there was some virtue to be found in speaking bluntly, directly. If you consider polite discourse to be pandering…well, then maybe Ir’s quotes about atheists are not entirely inapplicable. Just leave me out, thanks.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Siamang
26Eliza, according to that survey, there’s about 1 million agnostics, about 900,000 atheists about a million people who call themselves humanist or secular. That’s about 3 million.
An additional 27 million respond “no religion”.
There are about 2.8 million adherants to Judaism in America.
Comment by: Lisa W.
27Siamang,
this is the coolest idea I’ve heard in weeks:
thanks!
Comment by: Lisa W.
28As a Christian I must say that when I hear Atheists talks about Critical Thinking Skills as if Christians are not critical thinkers I am real offended and don’t want to continue conversing. Just FYI to Atheists.
Comment by: Eliza
29Thanks, Siamang! Those numbers sound quite reasonably robust. So, to follow up on your post #15 above, any suggestions on how not to be so invisible, so people can know when they are interacting with a real live atheist & get to put faces with that label? Beyond having Hemant do more interviews & appearances? :)
Stephan, I meant to say earlier, thank you for your comments, especially in #3 far above. I, too, have had great conversations at home about this website, and the people on it and things I’ve learned or realized, and appreciate this whole opportunity for such a reasonable exchange of thoughts & points of view. Would you mind relaying some of what you and your son discussed about this site? (I have one, almost 8…)
Comment by: Eliza
30Lisa W,
My intent was not to offend, though I can see how it comes across that way, and I apologize! I’m not suggesting any deficit in intelligence or thought processes among anyone, but instead referring to a specific school of thought.
“Critical thinking” is a specific term or approach embraced by skeptics (for whom only airtight logic and substantive proof are credible) more so than by believers (for whom faith is valid and in fact very important). Wikipedia has a page about it, including quote from William Graham Sumner: “Critical thinking is the examination and test of propositions of any kind which are offered for acceptance, in order to find out whether they correspond to reality or not.” The Critical Thinking Community’s website has more information; I don’t know anything about them.
I tried googling Critical thinking and Christian/Christianity but not much popped up except this homeschooling site critical of it. Would be interested what you think of their view.
I’m a skeptic & so “critical thinking” strikes me as an excellent approach. Clearly, since it doesn’t allow for faith as part of the “equation”, not everyone will agree. Beyond any application to religion, though, I do feel strongly that kids should be exposed to it, because I think that everyone who lives in a capitalist society should be able to critically evaluate advertisements, and everyone who lives in a democracy should be able to critically evaluate candidates and initiatives.
But, you could say I’m biased on this subject and leave it at that!
Comment by: Ir
31which was in response to:
Eliza: I totally agree with Jayson B that
If atheism were ever to gain traction, it would NEVER be with attacking god, religion, or jesus. It would be with getting our nation to properly teach children critical thinking skills, something that we completely ignore in education.
But don’t hold your breath. Critical thinking skills are threatening to the status quo. Europe has done better at this than the U.S., by far, imo.
Well…I also think schools could do a better job of teaching critical thinking skills to kids, judging by the lack of them in the adult population in general. I also think, Lisa, that Christians are not always encouraged by other Christians to think as critically as they ought to. However, I take your point because I know/know of some Christians who are very thoughtful. And I’ve come across atheists on the Internet elsewhere whose parroting of anti-Christian dogma seems greatly lacking in critical thought. So, it’s not fair to generalize that atheists are critical thinkers and Christians are not.
I do sympathize with Jayson knowing that he had a frustrating debate-y sort of day here on this blog yesterday and with Eliza who posted what she did right after being at a service where the preacher stated everything as fact and didn’t invite anyone to ask questions or give their own opinion. Which is how it typically is in church but Eliza is not used to that so for her it was in stark contrast to the situations she is usually in when she is listening to an adult speech.
Comment by: Jayson B.
32It might help dissuade our opinion if you didn’t use run-on sentences.
Everyone on the fact of the earth has the capacity for critical thinking Lisa, but unfortunately, it’s rarely used. You know who uses critical thinking? Scientists. Doctors. Lawyers. Atheists. All of the above who are atheists.
Critical thinking skills need to be taught lisa, just like anything else on this earth. They do not come naturally. And don’t take this the wrong way, but when a preacher on sunday says “pray with your heart for an answer, your mind won’t give it to you,” I have little hope that the churches are teaching these skills.
Teaching people to act on emotion rather than thought is the exact *opposite* of critical thinking.
Comment by: Jayson B.
33Ir,
generalizations are perfectly acceptable, because generally, they are true. The word itself implies that it applies to most, but not all.
Now if we were to discriminate, or say ALL, well then we’d be jerks for assuming as much.
Comment by: Ir
34Jayson, I agree that some things Christians say to one another can discourage critical thinking. However, for you to be a critical thinker yourself it is important not to generalize from what one preacher says on one Sunday to the way all Christians think and live. So - I hope you’re not doing that :)
Moreover, it’s somewhat of a mischaracterization to say Christians teach people to act on emotion rather than thought. Christians are continually (not always but very often ;)) urging each other not to let emotions rule their lives.
Comment by: Ir
35Jayson, if you say ‘most’ then yes, the generalization is acceptable. But I didn’t see that word in your and Eliza’s comments. You were both talking in absolute terms, albeit implicitly, since neither of you actually said “atheists are critical thinkers; Christians aren’t”.
Comment by: Jayson B.
36Ir,
if I said “all” that would be absolute. The comments made are general comments, so the generalization stands.
How about in the future, if I *don’t* use an absolute, then just assume by nature it’s a generalization :)
But we’re not talking about not letting emotion control our lives, we’re talking about making decisions based on emotion, rather than logic. And that is something that ALL christians do, and yes, I’m using the absolute for a reason. Faith, by its very nature, is an emotional decision, not a rational one.
Supernatural faiths, by their nature, are decisions of emotion, not of logic or critical thinking. Critical thinking needs to be taught in our schools. Science and math need to stop being under attack from people of faith who believe they’re destroying the world. Those things need to happen before atheism could ever become mainstream.
Comment by: TXatheist
37Tom,
I used that verbage to bait you. You took the bait and I do feel guilty but you made my point ever so valid. As far as not using my real name. I can give you two examples of people who found out I was an atheist and my real name and harassed me. I ain’t worried about me, but the cowards coming to my house and harassing my family.
Comment by: Jayson B.
38Eliza,
that website was downright scary!
“avoid materials that tell your children to think for themselves.”
excuse me?
this guy clearly had no clue about how critical thinking works. Critical thinking isn’t about coming to a conclusion that works for you, it’s about coming to a conclusion that works. that’s called the truth.
Comment by: TXatheist
39Jayson,
My son is too young but have you heard of Dan Barker’s book for kids? I’ve heard they are good and will get them in a few years.
Comment by: Jayson B.
40Dan Barker is a great author all the way around, so I couldn’t NOT suggest them.
Personally, I found mark twain’s writings to be a teacher of critical thinking. Mark Twain was far more of an rogue intellect than people gave him credit for.
Comment by: Stephan
41I agree that critical thinking is important and missing in a large part of our society. I would add, however, that many of the important decisions we make require critical thinking and emotions. The decision to get married is a great example. Sadly, in this case, the divorce rate would indicate that the decision is too often based on emotion rather than critical thinking, but I think both are required. The decision to have children, and how many to have, also includes an emotional element. My decision 5 years ago to move to another city closer to my family had an emotional element, although there was a great deal of critical thinking involved as well.
I think we can say that critical thinking has been neglected in many ways, but I don’t think we can say it is more important or more valid that emotions, and I don’t agree that if we taught more critical thinking we would have fewer Christians.
To exclude the emotional element from decision making is to cut off part of our humanity. I don’t believe that critical thinking and emotions are mutually exclusive, but that they are both factors to be used in decision making.
Comment by: TXatheist
42I respectfully disagree. I think the problem is each generation generally gets their parent’s religion shoved down their throat and many kids are forced to go to Sunday school/church. They get so conformed to accepting this that the repitition sets in and it becomes their usual train of thought. Who created the earth? “God” is the predominant answer.
Comment by: Stephan
43TX, if, as Jayson asserts, we taught our kids critical thinking alongside religion, they would eventually end up rejecting religion, so having it “shoved down their throats” wouldn’t hurt a thing. Right?
Comment by: TXatheist
44Yes, it would, it alters and interferes with that completely. It’s like going to a decent public school that teaches evolution only to be deceived on sunday and taught the 6 day creation myth. They both aren’t valid ideas or schools of thought.
Comment by: Jayson B.
45Stephan,
If critical thinking got people away from religion, shoving it down their throats would not only be wasteful, but it would be controlling as well.
Comment by: Stephan
46TX, you’re back to the straw man that says Sunday School will teach them that the earth was created in six days. This may happen in some places, but it is not universal.
And Jayson, you omit the idea that Christian parents may take their kids to church because they believe Christianity is true. This is neither a waste of time nor controlling. It is simply doing what you think is best for your kids.
Comment by: Jayson B.
47Stephan,
I would think letting your children make their own decision would be what’s best for them, rather than forcing them to do something.
Religion isn’t brussel sprouts.
Comment by: Stephan
48Jayson, I will allow my children to make their own decisions when they are old enough to be responsible for them. I believe Christianity is true, so I would not be doing my job as a parent if I did not teach that to them. If, when they are adults, they choose not to go to church or follow any religion, that will be their prerogative.
Comment by: TXatheist
49Stephan,
The bible doesn’t say the biblical god created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th? What bible do you have? I gotta know. It’s not universally taught that way because that version of the universe is wrong and if anyone believes it they are wrong.
Comment by: TXatheist
50Stephan,
I disagree, I think doing your job as a parent is telling them the truth, the bible is a book of mythology like all religious books, book of mormon, gita, Torah, and the koran.
Comment by: Jayson B.
51stephan,
so if you child is 15 and decides that he doesn’t want to go to church, would you make him?
Comment by: Stephan
52TX, first, there has been a lot of discussion here regarding a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 that I won’t go over here.
Second, it is your opinion that the Bible is mythology. My opinion is that it is not only true, but greatly important. It would follow logically that I would want to impart that to my children.
Comment by: Stephan
53Jayson, I’m really not sure at what point I would allow my children to make their own decision on that. I’ll have to cross that bridge when I come to it. Right now my kids are 6 and 9, so it’s not an issue yet.
Comment by: TXatheist
54And hence my point, the bible is never to be taken literally. It’s not my opinion the bible is mythology. Look up the word and then realize your error in not understanding that definition. It would logically follow that if you don’t understand that you use the same illogic to force feed them nonsense that you don’t understand is bunk.
9, if my kid thinks god is literal at nine I’ll have some homework for him daily to get over that deficiency.
Comment by: Stephan
55TX, I am bothered by your lack of respect for opposing opinions on both the existence of God and the legitimacy of the Bible. Your opinion is just that - an opinion. You cannot say for a fact that God does not exist, because, as you have stated you cannot prove a negative. You cannot say for a fact that the Bible is not true. Yet you continue to assert both of these as facts. Until you can prove that they are not true, I would ask that you express these as opinions rather than facts.
Comment by: Jayson B.
56stephan,
in logic, the burden of evidence is on solely the person making the claim. We don’t propose that god does not exist: we propose there is no evidence of god. Religious people alone make the claim that god exists, so to a rational person you need to provide proof. no proof, no conclusion.
Comment by: Stephan
57Ah, but TX IS making a conclusion. He says the Bible is a myth. That is a conclusion. If he were to say, “In my opinion, the Bible is a myth,” I would have no problem. He has never said that, and has always asserted it as a fact.
Comment by: TXatheist
58It is a fact there is zero evidence for god, santa claus delivering presents, the tooth fairy, elves and leprachauns. People believe in all these things for various reasons. You said the bible isn’t universally taught that the earth was created in 6 days yet it says it right there. It’s either true or not true. If that is not true, and it’s not, then it’s correct to say the bible is not true. That is not my opinion, my opinion is you don’t like that and refuse to acknowledge it.
Comment by: Stephan
59TX, I’m going to try to be patient today, but you keep pushing. Just because one part of the Bible is not taken as literal history does not mean the whole thing is out. That has been stated so many times on this site that your ignorance of it is quite illogical. It is also your opinion that there is no evidence for the existence of God. I will agree that there is not proof, but evidence and proof are not the same thing.
Comment by: Jayson B.
60Stephan,
I knew way in advance you were going to say just that, but I decided not to head you off because that would have appeared to be presuming, and defensiveness would have kicked in.
Tx, in reality, is NOT proposing anything. He is simply refuting your, and all christians, proposal that the bible is true and god exists.
Christians say, “the bible is true.”
Atheists respond, “give me proof, and if you until you can, the bible isn’t.”
The reason why you can’t prove a negative is because a negative only arises FROM a proposal being refuted.
You say Unicorns exist. I say that don’t because you haven’t provided proof. I’m not proposing anything there, I’m responding to yours.
You can’t respond with “aha! prove to me that unicorns DON’T exist, and since you can’t, that must mean they do!”
Get it?
Comment by: TXatheist
61Stephan,
Consider it shoving you. No, the bible is false from the beginning and fiction from the beginning. You trying to justify it’s more than that is ignorant. Your ignorance of the idea that evidence in your head is actual is nothing more than irrational. There is no evidence of any god or proof. Using semantics to wish your point was valid only makes it ridiculous games of verbage.
Comment by: Stephan
62Jayson, I get it, I really do. I am not stating for a fact that God exists or that Christianity is true (at least not to you). I believe those things are true. You disagree, but both of our opinions are only opinions. It takes a great leap to decide that, since there is no proof, something is not true. You can say that since there is no proof you do not believe it. But to say that lack of proof means something is not true is a logical error.
Comment by: TXatheist
63It is not my opinion that there is zero evidence or proof for god. Jayson gets it(at least one of you does). It is not a gigantic leap to say that the tooth fairy doesn’t leave a quarter under pillows when someone looses a tooth. It’s made up though some people believe it. It’s illogical, it’s an unfounded claim and wishful thinking at best to think the tooth fairy exists.
Comment by: Siamang
64Oh man, you three are making my head spin. Oh, lookeee! There’s a message board on the top right!!!!
;-)
Comment by: Stephan
65I will drop it now. I can see that neither one of you is able to view this objectively.
Incidentally, this is part of why people have such a suspect view of Atheists. Some of you see the rest of us as naive simpletons who would see things your way if we were only as intelligent and enlightened as you. This disingenuous attitude does no favors for you as a group and causes the rest of us to view you as outsiders who think yourselves better than the rest of us.
Comment by: TXatheist
66Stephan,
Don’t like the assessment, go get a tissue and cry in a corner. I ain’t going to kiss your butt but shove you in a corner and make you cry for my honesty. You wouldn’t know objectively if it smacked you in the head. God=imaginary friend, now deny it with your objective view you wish you had. Your group is losing ground even though you didn’t like adherents.com statistics. When you keep losing ground I’ll be there for your 9 year old to tell them the truth. God is imaginary.
Comment by: Eliza
67OK, kids, that’s it. No ice cream for you tonight!
Congratulatios on noone becoming converted to the “other side” during this discussion. But you knew that would happen. And you pretty much know what the other guy is going to say. Give it a rest, eh? Or go to the message board or whatever. Thanks, and I too will try to be less testy (moody?) than I was in my postings last night.
Comment by: Stephan
68TX, I believe it was the Atheists that started the crying here. You are the most distrusted minority, remember? I understand you perfectly. And that is why I don’t trust you.
Comment by: TXatheist
69That’s not crying, that’s just a statistic to show you how much bigotry still resides in your group. You don’t like that I’m right so you use emotion to override it and say you don’t trust me. Perfectly inline with illogical beliefs.
Comment by: TXatheist
70I’m on the message board, stephan go over there and shoot off all you want with no recourse for our verbage.
Comment by: Eliza
71And, back to something Stephan said:
My son is 7 1/2 and has been declaring firmly for about a year now that he does not believe in God. I feel a little bad about this, seems like he should be too young to have come to this conclusion (and he could well change his mind later), but in asking him why he thinks this I am amazed at how he seems to have come to this conclusion based on his reading and thinking about astronomy and physics (he’s quite the science/math nerd). Until I got involved in this website, my husband and I kept our beliefs in this area pretty much under wraps at home, on my part not wanting to influence our son (also, we agree, so what’s to discuss?). I’m sure that our complete lack of involvement in any church didn’t help, by not exposing him to Sunday school or to Christians (outside some well-meaning older relatives, like the one who is horrified that he hasn’t been baptised). Anyway, I got a kid’s book for our son ~3-4 years ago which talks about how people worship God in different ways, gives some nice examples; unfortunately I find the book far more interesting than he does. When he comments on his belief that there is no God, I play devil’s advocate (so to speak) and point out that many, many people do believe, and believe deeply, and feel it brings something to their lives that is otherwise missing, and how can he be so sure. So far, that hasn’t made a dent. I do want him to be aware of other people’s beliefs and feelings, and have a chance to explore other routes if/when he feels the need, not sure how to do this other than what I’m trying with him now. But in terms of ‘not allowing’ a child to make his/her own decision - you can present them with a belief system (at home, in school on weekends and/or weekdays) & you can require them to attend church/school - but can you prevent them from making their own belief decisions, at any age?
Comment by: Siamang
72When things get hot and heavy here, I predict it’ll be the usual suspects behind it. I’m usually right.
Grow up, TX. Stop acting like a 4-year old. Stop pushing and start listening for a change.
Comment by: Daz
73Diagnosis of the above condition “Paradigm conflict”.
” Ever since the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the concept of a paradigm has been a familiar, useful, albeit sometimes controversial, tool. The concept of a paradigm helps us considerably in understanding scientific revolutions, when dramatic changes occur involving deep-rooted assumptions about how things are or how things must be. All academics matriculate within the context of a specific discipline that trains its practitioners to think in terms of the currently operating paradigm. Once the operating paradigm has been internalized in the mind of the individual, other competing paradigms appear wrong and/or foolish.
To one who has internalized a paradigm, this way of approaching things appears to be right, reasonable, objective, and sensible. The paradigm itself is rarely questioned. It is the very water in which the academic philosopher swims, which is why it is so difficult for one who is immersed in the paradigm to see it as a paradigm, rather than as the way things “must be.” Someone operating out of a different paradigm appears to be out of touch with reality, irrational, and so on.” Neal Grossman
I’m a little disappointed I didn’t hear more feedback on the article by Alister MxcGrath I posted at the beginning :-(
Comment by: TXatheist
74Siamang,
F U
When I need your input I’ll ask, otherwise shut your pie hole.
Comment by: Lisa W.
75Back on the topic of critical thinking.
Thank you Eliza and Ir for your thoughts and references. I found them very helpful.
Jayson, pardon my lack of proper punctuation. I embrace the run-on sentence at times and figure people will not see it as a personal deficit.
My point was to say that I hear this critical thinking comment alot. It was not referencing anyone in particular. It was to say that the comment can feel like a put down which shuts me down to the dialog.
OF COURSE critical thinking is important. All people should practice critical thinking. I work in the investigations division of a police department! We do alot of critical thinking here. But talking about a lack of critical thinking mixed with the topic of faith seems at times crazy making to me. I do understand however that some treatments of blind faith, where the conversation is closed to discussion, is irritating to many, including me.
Comment by: Stephan
76Eliza, at this point I’m sure none of my kids would question whether or not God exists. I think TX is right here, that they are so inundated with that belief at this point that they are not able to question it. I don’t know that I have prevented them from making their own decision, but I have strongly predisposed them in one direction. In the end they can make up their own mind, but the information they have is so one-sided that I don’t think it would be an informed decision.
The conversations I have had at home have not been directed so much at my nine-year-old, but he overhears everything my wife and I talk about, and this message board has been a big topic of conversation. I think (and hope) that what he is learning from me is that people have value above and beyond what they believe or how they act. I hope is learning to look at people as individuals and not stereotypes. My previous impression of Atheists was that you were all hard hearted and closed minded. I am pleased to see that some of you still honestly question and realize that there is some value in religion, even if you don’t subscribe to it yourself.
Comment by: Siamang
77Eliza, thanks for allowing that peek into my own future. I wonder what my daughter will be like. I don’t want her to close the door to God, I just don’t want to raise her with the idea that I taught her things that I don’t personally believe.
I strongly feel she has her own spiritual journey to make. I don’t want to push her in any direction. I just want to raise her with the ability to weigh various claims with a critical eye.
There are cults out there. Beyond just religion, there are cults. I don’t think that I ever had the tools to evaluate the difference when I was young in the world. I didn’t have the tools to say, I believe THIS far, and no further. It was all or nothing, either the rapture is soon, or the Bible is false. If the rapture is soon, why the heck am I learning to read and write and why save money for college…. etc.
So, I want her to be able to evaluate these things, and if in her evaluation she becomes a Christian or anything else, that’ll be her spiritual journey, which is different than mine.
But that’s behind why I didn’t baptize her when my mother asked me to. That’s her journey, not mine. If my daughter wants to be baptized, she’ll make that decision.
Comment by: Lisa W.
78Eliza, Do I get icecream? I promise to bring some yummy brownies.
Comment by: Ir
79Eliza, there are some priceless quotes on that homeschooling site; like -
Indeed - what a terrible concept to pass along to impressionable young minds! ;)
Comment by: Ir
80What’s the bottom line - some atheists/atheist organizations haven’t done a great job of selling themselves - they’ve been too “in your face” or too boring or too simplistic?
I guess that’s something they have in common with some Christians, then ;)
Comment by: TXatheist
81Ir,
Would you say it’s more likely in your opinion to be conformists if one is a traditional xian or a traditional atheist? Just work with me here on this unusual question if you would please. I’ll answer first if you request such.
Comment by: Eliza
82Yeah, I was hoping that homeschooling site wasn’t too inflammatory but it really is all I could find. I especially like the warning that “Eighth grade is not the time or place to ponder the nature of reality” - well, why on earth not???
BTW, the book I was talking about is “What is God” by Etan Boritzer. It seems like kind of a UU approach, saw it described as coming to a New Age/pantheistic conclusion. It talks about several different religions and conflict between them, ends up endorsing individual prayer & reflecting on interpersonal/family connections to figure out “What is God”. Reviews on Amazon are mostly positive, though one glowing one is from Acharya S, a prolific skeptic author. It’s listed as being for 9-12 year olds, 4th-6th grade, but the vocabulary seems to be at a lower level than that - 3rd-4th grade - so maybe it was the ideas that led to that higher age/grade “rating”.
Comment by: Ir
83TXatheist, it’s not an easy question to answer, because Christian leaders encourage Christians to be conformist when it comes to obeying their authority, but not necessarily conformist with regard to societal rules which Christians see as ‘against God’ - hence Christian activism.
Atheists might conform for pragmatic reasons; they don’t conform because a book says they ought to.
There’s individual variation among both Christians and atheists in how activist they are.
Statistically, a nonconformist teenager who rebels against his/her parents belief/nonbelief will more likely be rebelling against Christianity than atheism, because statistically most parents are Christians.
I guess those are my thoughts, TX.
Comment by: Stephan
84It’s sad to see that some people are so reactionary, but if you are going to see that anywhere it will be with the home school crowd. Many of them pulled their kids out of public schools to shield them from outside influence. This is certainly not the place to go to get a clear representation of what most Christians believe about critical thinking.
Comment by: TXatheist
85Stephan,
Where is a good/fair place to see critical thinking xians…please? Ir, I’m not going to make it til 4:30 on my thingy.
Comment by: Ir
86TXatheist, re: critical thinking - see what you think of The Christian Think Tank
I know you won’t agree with the conclusions there but I would say they are thoughtfully arrived at and through much research.
Comment by: Stephan
87TX, I don’t know of a definitive source on the Christian view of critical thinking. Of course, there probably isn’t a definitive source on the Christian view of anything, but that’s another story.
I don’t have a great deal of time to research, but here are a few things Google turned up:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/critical.htm
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b091.htm
I’m out the door in five minutes and don’t have time to look at much else.
Everyone have a great weekend!
Comment by: Lisa W.
88Ir, cool reference site. Thank you.
Comment by: Hifi
89The criticism that atheists are less moral, not only is false, it has it backwards: societies with less religion score higher on almost all moral indicators. It is indeed sad that atheists, who have no common organization, have not been able to capitalize on this fact. Religion now can only rightfully be said to serve two functions: as a social club, and as a personal refuge.
Journal of Religion and Society: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Excerpt:
“The data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.”
“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
90TX, the Christian organization that I think does the best job of critical thinking that I know of is Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. Of course you are going to find varieation from individual to individual and region to region, but I know several people who are high level leaders and I have a great deal of respect for their critical skills.
Another guy is Bill Craig (happens to be a college classmate). I know he gets bashed on some skeptic sites. but you asked about critical thinking, not about initial assumptions. And that really applies to a lot of people on both sides of the issue.
To me, a lot of atheist thought seems like sloppy thinking. I have no doubt that, to you, a lot of Christian thought seems like sloppy thinking. But the reason is that in both cases we are bring our presuppositions to the table unexamined. Most of the time, in my experience, the conversation does not begin where it really should: with an examination of presuppositions and and examination of the logic used to build them. Because once the presuppositions are constructed and in place, then the rest of the house usually holds together reasonably well…or at least it should. ;-)
But if you’re looking for someone to build a Christian case from non-Christian assumptions…good luck.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
91Hifi, there is an unspoken assumption in your quote, it appears. That is, that the greatest good of a society is to avoid social disaster. But that assumption is not shared by more religious societies. So all that has been destroyed is a straw man.
Comment by: TXatheist
92Bill Craig as in Willaim L Craig? If that’s him I despise him and his blundering attempts at debate, imo. I listened to him for the 1st time a few years ago and I give him the debate skills of a 3rd grader. That’s not a rip on him, but his debate skills.
Hifi’s point is the less religious the more moral a society is. The idea of a social disaster is not something I got out of it, especially since Armageddon is only relevant to the religious.
Comment by: Eliza
93Thanks, Ir and Stephan for more links to critical thinking. One of Stephan’s links, the American Scientific Affiliation website, has a more detailed discussion of CT on its ,a href=”http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/critical.htm”>homepage; unfortunately, most of the links from that page to additional supportive information are now defunct. Their discussion seems pretty well-balaned, imo. This quote from that page, part of a consensus statement, seems to me especially pertinent to our approach to discussions here:
“The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit.
Comment by: Eliza
94OK, let’s try that again: American Scientific Affiliation “critical thinking skills in education” page
Anyway, I see some qualities in that list which I know I could do better on.
Comment by: Hifi
95Tom, to clarify, that would be “social disaster” as in a rampantly immoral, dysfunctional society. There is no question that this is the most prominent criticism levied at atheists: their moral turpitude and the undesirable consequences of that on the health of society. This is exactly, what those surveyed in “Least Trusted” article g as the reason for their negative view of atheists. In case you didn’t read the whole thing, I’ve included a relevant section here:
–
Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.
Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and
procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said.
The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation — with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.”
–
But the JRS study found that the evidence shows that the actual case is just the opposite.
–
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly.
The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.
No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional.
None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.
–
There is no moral high-ground for religion. Use it to seek solace, use it for a group to find comformity with, but please do not hold yourself as a believer to be in any way morally superior to an atheist.