Significance of Atheism: Making Atheism Matter
Question:
Does atheism have any moral or intellectual significance for society today, or is it simply irrelevant?
Response:
The mere fact that a person doesn?t happen to believe in any gods isn?t very meaningful. Thus, if atheism is going to have intellectual or moral significance, it must be for other reasons. Those reasons can?t be found simply in critiques of religion or arguments against theism; instead they must be found in a general program of reason, skepticism, and critical inquiry.
George Smith has labeled such a program a ?habit of reasonableness.? Unreflective and unthinking atheism is no more rational than unthinking theism ? and it is without question that atheists are capable of being as unreasonable and irrational as the most bizarre theist. Because of this, being a skeptical atheist requires more work and effort than simply being an atheist ? it requires consciously and consistently striving to reject intellectual laziness and exercising our reasoning abilities.
What this means is that we must not focus simply on what we think; instead, we should focus on how we think. This is the issue of freethought, the ability to come to independent conclusions on issues without relying on things like authority, tradition, or emotion to make decisions for us. Critical thinking skills must be learned and practiced. This means not just being ?reasonable? in one area like religion or politics ? skepticism must be practiced across all areas of life, especially those where we have an emotional or personal investment in what we believe.
Simply critiquing religion doesn?t accomplish much ? and unfortunately, that is what occupies too much of the time of many atheists. The problem is, merely attacking religion won?t necessarily cause any changes either in peoples? behavior or in society. A better methodology is to ensure that such critiques take place within a general program of promoting reason.
Broad encouragement of the wider use of reason and logic in all areas of life does have a chance of creating changes for the better. Encouraging other people to get into a habit of being skeptical may eventually get them to approach their religious beliefs in a more critical manner, even if religion and theism are never actually discussed.
Thus, an atheism which is both morally and intellectually significant is not mere atheism, but rather an atheism which is deeply enmeshed in a skeptical world view and which is part of a program of promoting skeptical thinking and critical inquiry in all areas of life. Part of this promotion will have to be through setting a good example.
Atheists must make every attempt to be the best model of reasonableness possible. This isn?t always easy, I know ? but it is a goal which we should all strive for. If we cannot lead by example, we?ll never lead at all. For this reason, a rational atheist must always be ready and willing to call into question whatever happens to pass for ?conventional wisdom? at the time.
An atheist who questions popular religious assumptions, but not popular political or consumer assumptions, is not really a freethinker and not someone who has truly adopted a ?habit of reasonableness.? It is clear, then, that a logically and morally consistent atheist necessarily be a bit of a ?radical? in their society, calling into question many popular or common ideas.
What this means is that a morally and intellectually significant atheism is one which is can tend to be socially subversive ? and this may be one reason why atheism has always been treated with suspicion and distrust. If an atheist would go so far as to stop believing in God, what else might he or she call into question?
To reiterate: the difference between atheism and theism has no great moral or intellectual significance. What is significant, however, is the methodological difference between the use of skepticism, reason, logic, and science on the one hand and fantasy, intuition, and tradition on the other. Atheists do not necessarily rely upon the former; those who don?t are no better, morally or intellectually, than fundamentalists who also don?t rely upon the former methodology.
Does atheism have any moral or intellectual significance for society today, or is it simply irrelevant?
Response:
The mere fact that a person doesn?t happen to believe in any gods isn?t very meaningful. Thus, if atheism is going to have intellectual or moral significance, it must be for other reasons. Those reasons can?t be found simply in critiques of religion or arguments against theism; instead they must be found in a general program of reason, skepticism, and critical inquiry.
George Smith has labeled such a program a ?habit of reasonableness.? Unreflective and unthinking atheism is no more rational than unthinking theism ? and it is without question that atheists are capable of being as unreasonable and irrational as the most bizarre theist. Because of this, being a skeptical atheist requires more work and effort than simply being an atheist ? it requires consciously and consistently striving to reject intellectual laziness and exercising our reasoning abilities.
What this means is that we must not focus simply on what we think; instead, we should focus on how we think. This is the issue of freethought, the ability to come to independent conclusions on issues without relying on things like authority, tradition, or emotion to make decisions for us. Critical thinking skills must be learned and practiced. This means not just being ?reasonable? in one area like religion or politics ? skepticism must be practiced across all areas of life, especially those where we have an emotional or personal investment in what we believe.
Simply critiquing religion doesn?t accomplish much ? and unfortunately, that is what occupies too much of the time of many atheists. The problem is, merely attacking religion won?t necessarily cause any changes either in peoples? behavior or in society. A better methodology is to ensure that such critiques take place within a general program of promoting reason.
Broad encouragement of the wider use of reason and logic in all areas of life does have a chance of creating changes for the better. Encouraging other people to get into a habit of being skeptical may eventually get them to approach their religious beliefs in a more critical manner, even if religion and theism are never actually discussed.
Thus, an atheism which is both morally and intellectually significant is not mere atheism, but rather an atheism which is deeply enmeshed in a skeptical world view and which is part of a program of promoting skeptical thinking and critical inquiry in all areas of life. Part of this promotion will have to be through setting a good example.
Atheists must make every attempt to be the best model of reasonableness possible. This isn?t always easy, I know ? but it is a goal which we should all strive for. If we cannot lead by example, we?ll never lead at all. For this reason, a rational atheist must always be ready and willing to call into question whatever happens to pass for ?conventional wisdom? at the time.
An atheist who questions popular religious assumptions, but not popular political or consumer assumptions, is not really a freethinker and not someone who has truly adopted a ?habit of reasonableness.? It is clear, then, that a logically and morally consistent atheist necessarily be a bit of a ?radical? in their society, calling into question many popular or common ideas.
What this means is that a morally and intellectually significant atheism is one which is can tend to be socially subversive ? and this may be one reason why atheism has always been treated with suspicion and distrust. If an atheist would go so far as to stop believing in God, what else might he or she call into question?
To reiterate: the difference between atheism and theism has no great moral or intellectual significance. What is significant, however, is the methodological difference between the use of skepticism, reason, logic, and science on the one hand and fantasy, intuition, and tradition on the other. Atheists do not necessarily rely upon the former; those who don?t are no better, morally or intellectually, than fundamentalists who also don?t rely upon the former methodology.
Source...