goodwill, charity, optimism

[miriam_e]

Hmmm... I think I should have used the word "disbelief" instead of "atheism", and "non-believer" instead of "atheist" in order to avoid touching sensitive nerves. The campaign against atheists has been waged for so long that even very smart people don't seem to be conscious of the buttons it pushes in them. Wish I'd had the brains to have realised this earlier. I think I accidentally pissed off some good people.

I read another piece by the wise and insightful nun Joan Chittister, and though I agree with most of her writings, I just had to reply to her on this one. She was talking about why people should worship god. Her reasons were the same ones many religious people put forward: that morality, humility, and optimism require belief in a god. It is so amazingly backwards, and I was very surprised to hear someone of her intelligence to proclaim such nonsense. I know a lot of religious people and a lot of atheists. In general I have to say the atheists are better human beings than the religious folk. The atheists tend to be more optimistic about the world and our chances of fixing it, they are more tolerant of others, and are mostly more humble. (Note that I'm talking about large numbers of people so this doesn't necessarily apply to any individual case -- I know religious people who I'm delighted to call my friends, and atheists who I tend to avoid, and vice versa, but when looking at an average the atheists definitely are better people overall.)

I often encounter this misunderstanding of atheists; that they are a sour, unhappy, uncharitable lot. Some time back I was told by a friend, who I only knew through the net, that the show "My So-Called Life" was superb. I valued her judgment, so when I found the DVD set recently I bought it. My friend was right, and I love the series. However one particular episode really put my teeth on edge, where a homeless kid was saved and a very strong religious message was sent, associating religion with warmth, charity, and family. It also implied that lack of religion was associated with cold, loneliness, and selfishness. How annoying!

The more it is studied, the more it is found that virtually every social ill that humans are prey to increases with religion. The healthiest, happiest, most generous societies on Earth are atheist. The most intolerant, violent, unhappy societies are religious.

Here is some info on research that shows how mistaken is the standard view of the effect of religion upon societies:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
(I posted an easier to read version on my site at:
http://miriam-english.org/alia/religion_ill.html )

An audio recording of an interview with Gregory Paul:
http://miriam-english.org/files/Phillip Adams interviews Gregory Paul 2005-10-04.mp3

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP073984414.pdf
(I must convert that pdf document to more easily used html.)

Comments

[greylock.livejournal.com]

The atheists tend to be more optimistic about the world and our chances of fixing it, they are more tolerant of others, and are mostly more humble.

I know you qualified the bit about it being a large group, but, really....
"optimistic, tolerant and humble" aren't three of the words that spring to mind.

However one particular episode really put my teeth on edge, where a homeless kid was saved and a very strong religious message was sent associating religion with warmth, charity, and family.

Probably because Churches, certainly in Australia, are forces for social good (sometimes) running soup kitchens and whatnot. Are there completely secular groups that do that? Probably.

It also implied that lack of religion was associated with cold, loneliness, and selfishness.

A properly, constituted socialist system would make a mockery of that statement. If you could convince people to stop being selfish.


The healthiest, happiest, most generous societies on Earth are atheist. The most intolerant, violent, unhappy societies are religious.

I'd change atheist to "secular". It sits better.
To me an atheist society seems something that would crush theism beneath its boot heel while a secular one would be more 'Do what thy will if it harms none".

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

"optimistic, tolerant and humble" aren't three of the words that spring to mind
That is because the heavy religious bias in mainstream media has been very successful at breeding that view, but "atheism" is really just another name for "humanism" which is far more optimistic than any religion I've encountered. Atheists are only now starting to stand up for themselves since religion is unambiguously threatening to bring on the final war; only a very meek and tolerant people could put up with the constant deluge of religious propaganda without saying anything for so damn long. Atheists generally too humble to claim to have the solution to the world's ills, or the right to ram it down other's throats, like so many religions do. Optimism, tolerance, and humility actually seem to fit atheism pretty well.

Churches... are forces for social good
I'd argue strenuously against that. By promoting religion they promote many social ills (homophobia, racism, misogyny, etc.). Some religious people are good people, but some religious people are extremely evil people. On balance the church does far more harm than good.

There are plenty of secular charities. I have helped out in some soup kitchens run from churches and was appalled at the way they used the opportunity to brainwash. That's not true charity. Secular organisations are often far superior, like Oxfam which started up because the religious famine relief organisations waste most of their contributions within the church organisations, very little actually getting out to the intended people.

A properly, constituted socialist system...
You mean like Sweden? Low crime, very high standard of living, virtual elimination of poverty, high standard of education and health. Oh, and mostly atheist.

change atheist to "secular"
I see it differently. Religious views have bred the idea that atheism is intolerant of religious people, but that isn't true. Every atheist I know has religious friends. Atheist really means not theist, it doesn't mean antitheist. (I do know atheists who are antitheists, but they seem to be pretty rare.) This accusation of intolerance mostly comes from religion when it feels threatened by those daring to voice atheism. Religion then wrongly condemns the atheists as being the intolerant ones. I have seen this in my friends who become quite nervous when I dismiss religion. Their feeling is generally that I'm being close-minded, intolerant, and even rude when I do so, yet when my words are carefully weighed up they are much milder than the usual sort of statements that the mildest religious people commonly utter. (Compare for instance the statements that "god stories are fairytales" and "god will save believers and torture atheists forever". Which is the more offensive?)

Atheism is no more than simply not believing in a god. And why should anybody believe in such a thing? Does anybody seriously believe I have a pet purple elephant? Why should they?

[xxclovergrrlxx.livejournal.com]

i think religion too often serves as a reason for creating distinction between people. when this happens, it has a tendency to turn to hate. humans are very susceptible to to the mob mentality. "one of us! one of us! ...not one of us!"

would you consider a buddhist an atheist? i don't believe in god. but i do believe in an afterlife... of a sort... it's not as if i will be me in my next life nor have any knowledge of this life. but i feel that this belief allies better with science, where energy is neither created nor destroyed. it simply changes form. but then again, buddhism is frequently classified a "philosophy" rather than a "religion". either way, i don't think buddhism falls under the points that you made about most religions. the single point of buddhism is to end suffering, most buddhists are aware that this cannot be accomplished by causing suffering to someone else... heh.

my personal belief of religion is that most are just happy ideas. they provide a service to people who are constantly wondering "why are we here? what is the point?" people don't want to see the true nature of reality, they don't want to know that when timmy was killed it was really just the consequence of right place and right time... they would rather think that there was some purpose to it. people in denial turn to religion. and most, do little to show you anything of truth. any religion which refuses to believe in science because it negates its ideals is pretty much fucked up. but that is so common here... it's called "faith"

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Buddhism is an odd one. I like a lot of the ideas in buddhism because it is, as you say, more philosophy than religion, but have you noticed the slow drift toward making it a religion? I think that is sad, but probably unavoidable in anything where there is belief without facts to support it... like buddhism's idea of reincarnation. It would be nice if there was some kind of afterlife, but to be honest there is zero evidence of it. Life isn't some kind of energy, but is a complex sequence of actions. When those actions stop, they don't go anywhere, they just stop. And life generally can't be started again because the machinery that does those complex chemical actions is broken and has begun to fall apart.

All data lead to the conclusion that there is only this life, and we need to do the best we can with it because it is our only shot. In my view that makes money and power almost a total waste of time, and makes it even more important that we do as much good as possible with the brief window we have. Life becomes infinitely more valuable if this is all you have, and being good to those around you is imperative if the only way you live on is in others' memories.

Unfortunately most people get their beliefs first, look for data to support them, and discard those bits of reality that don't fit with their beliefs. Religion, politics, economics, racism, sexism, and so on... all those work this way. The worst part is that people become so invested in those false beliefs they feel that undermining the beliefs is a threat to them.

I try to avoid beliefs altogether, simply assembling data and seeing what presents itself. As I keep adding more data and removing mistakes the whole picture constantly changes. I try to always doubt my view and never actually believe it, but instead enjoy the shifting process, taking comfort from the knowledge that while the view changes I am still learning; the minute it freezes then I'm in trouble because a static viewpoint in a changing world is certain to be wrong. This seems to me much more exhilarating and enlivening, and in keeping with my enjoyment of seasonal change and the growth of living things around me.

It is also very similar to a lot of buddhist philosophy, particularly zen, so you can understand my natural affinity to it. :)

[xxclovergrrlxx.livejournal.com]

well, there is proof of reincarnation... but not everyone agrees with it. past life regression therapy is something i find really interesting and i hope to some day experience it myself. i've read a few books on the topic and seen multiple documentaries on it, and they do provide some really interesting points... IF... they aren't all a farce, that is. haha. which is why i would like to experience it myself, that's the only way i'll ever really know. but regardless, it's enough to make me wonder... kinda like aliens. i still believe in them eventhough we've never caught one.

what's also important though, in my mind, is that there is no real proof AGAINST reincarnation either. nobody knows without a doubt what happens when we die. there's a really interesting book by the dalai lama called "the universe in a single atom" in which HHDL states that if science ever provided evidence that some of the beliefs of buddhism were inaccurate, without a doubt, that buddhism would change it's beliefs.

i can see what you're saying about beliefs, but in regard to buddhism, the beliefs seem to provide a different way to see the world. take the idea of karma, for example. there's no real proof of it. however, if you think about a work situation in which you are gossiping about your boss, and later your boss finds out and you lose a promotion because of it... this is an obvious example of karma. but you could easily replace the word "karma" with "consequence". that's what many of buddhism belief's are like... common sense. another example would be that of the Ten Worlds. basically, saying that each day we float in and out of ten different worlds (hell, hunger, anger, bodhisattva, tranquility, learning, animality, rapture...etc...) every day. these shape the way we act and the way the world reacts to us. it's no doubt that sometimes we are happy and sometimes we are sad, so really the concept of the Ten Worlds is not revolutionary at all. but it does provide another way of thinking about a common daily occurance. in my opinion, the majority of buddhist beliefs are really just observations. this is why buddhism so often is called a philosophy.

i don't know if i've seen a trend of buddhism drifting toward religion... really, buddhism has always been a lot like christianity in that there are so many different sects and they differ so greatly. it is difficult to talk about buddhism as a whole. i don't really know much about zen, the majority of my study is based on Nichiren and a little bit of Tibetan. but really, i couldn't tell you the difference between religion and philosophy anyways, lol. i think it's just a label.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Please, please do not have regression "therapy". Many studies have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it is simply implantation of ideas by the person running the session. In all the cases I've read, the "therapist" is not aware that they're implanting ideas. You've watched courtroom dramas, and seen the lawyer "leading the witness" this is exactly what implantation of "memories" is. It is extremely easy to do in a room with just the hypnotist and the victim. The hypnotist makes leading questions and the victim's natural imaginative process coupled with the suggestible state plants false memories. As I say, regression "therapy" has been proven time and time again to do nothing more than damage people.

Please don't get roped into that. You have a very good imagination. Heaven knows what damage someone could do trampling around in your mind.

After mentioning zen, I read more on it. It has been a few decades since I last did and I no longer agree with much that it says now. It seems to make the same mistake most religions make, of concentrating on the ritual instead of the mind. It strikes me as all backwards. The thing that originally attracted me to zen was the relinquishing of all those trappings -- the idea that it doesn't matter where you are or what you are doing, just be now. It struck me as a wonderful way to deal with so much of the world and our own limitations.

I totally agree with what you said about karma. Stripped of all its mystical wrappings karma is just simple good sense. What you do to others comes back to you.

The thing that worries me is people's tendency to see the symbol as the thing itself; to see the way of doing something as more important than the action; to see the surface attributes and not the meaning. This means they become involved with the robes, the incense, the books, the chants, the locations, the posture, and forget the original meaning. I agree that there should be nothing mystical about buddhism -- it is a set of commonsense suggestions for a good life. Unfortunately we all have a habit of turning free-form ideas for pleasant living into rulebooks to straightjacket ourselves and those around us. I'm as guilty as the next person. It is something we all do. I'm aware of the tendency, so I work hard to subvert it, but it sure isn't easy.

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

Are there atheist societies?

I neither agree with her view or yours.

I understand that some peoples religious practice can encourage the qualities you mention and I understand that some peoples lack of religious practice can encourage the qualities you mention.

People can embed their good ethics into whichever belief they chose.
And there are many people that chose their beliefs to excuse their lack of ethics and good character. Both atheism and religion are infinitely malleable by peoples interpretations so that either outcome is possible.

My annoyances with some Christians (for example) is usually because of their self righteousness.
My annoyance with some atheists is for the same reason.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Are there atheist societies?

Yep, at least in the sense that the majority of their people are atheist because that is simply how most of they choose to think; there is no order handed down from the ruling class. (Sweden, Japan, etc -- basically the first world countries with the lowest crime rate and highest standard of living.)

I neither agree with her view or yours.

:) I actually think your and my views are pretty much in sync. We both feel that religion is not a prerequisite for morality. There can be good atheists and good religious people.

As far as I can see, the only point we may diverge is where I note the research showing the correlation between religion and social ills in many societies, and related to that, I see more well-balanced atheists than religious people among my friends. I must always add the caution that generalising says very little about individuals -- I know some perfectly wonderful religious people without whom my life would be much poorer.

I can't really say I've seen much self-righteousness in atheists. I'm not shy about putting my ideas across, however I hope I'd always be delighted to find out I'm wrong about things (much better to find out my mistakes than to go on blithely committing them). The few atheists that are visible will be assertive, like me, but I don't think that translates to self-righteousness. The majority of atheists are so meek they will patiently sit through religious onslaughts without a murmur, generally only revealing their lack of belief if asked directly, and then often only to a fellow atheist. I've known some who simply decline to answer. I think it is a good thing atheists are starting to "come out of the closet". Religion has caused a lot of damage, and humanity is so powerful now and so dangerous that we need to back off on religious fervour. If atheists can help there then good. (But that is a very big "if".)

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

I don't diverge on your numbers research.

As you define an atheist society I guess it must exist but I was defining it as one in which everyone is atheist, or nearly everyone. And I don't know about that.

I do see what I define as self righteousness existing in both the theist and atheists camps. I don't really see how it serves to say that the religious guys are more so. That doesn't excuse it in the non religious.
I'm not saying you shouldn't assert yourself. Do what feels right to you by all means. Quite frankly though I'm neither a theist or an atheist and I have a hard time believing that if I explained my understandings and feelings about reality (supposing I even could) to an atheist they wouldn't feel inclined to sneer a bit.
I've sure seen them do it online.
I don't like to be constantly compared to someone whose intelligence has failed them.

So that's why I don't explain. From one end I can get treated like an idiot, from the other a sinner.
So I don't explain. My understandings are deeply personal and I'm not down with anyone spitting on them.

I agree religion has caused a lot of damage. Frankly it's the pain it put me through that has me so sensitive to the same kind of judgment and dictation coming from any quarter now.

A statement like this: " In general I have to say the atheists are better human beings than the religious folk." I can't see how it helps.
It really doesn't look much different to me than the visions of "sinners" versus "saved" that certain religions espouse.
In both cases the implication is that it's the particular belief that creates the superiority.

They're just beliefs. They could change tomorrow with a new experience, with new information or new understanding.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

A statement like this: " In general I have to say the atheists are better human beings than the religious folk." I can't see how it helps.

:) I know it looks inflammatory at first appearance, but I'm really trying to state a cold hard fact as innocuously as possible. On the whole, my atheist friends really are a better balanced, happier, more knowledgeable bunch than my religious friends. Why is that? Around the world religion corresponds with the worst social problems. It is not a coincidence. Religion is clearly not the comfort that people tend to think it is. If people don't start speaking about that then the same old propaganda will prevail (even a brilliant and wise person like Joan Chittister is sucked in by it). If I and others don't contradict that falsehood then it is not likely to change... or at least change will be slower and more painful than it needs be.

All this would not be a problem if people didn't cling to beliefs, defending them with fear and hate.

They're just beliefs.

But that's the whole point, really. Atheism isn't a belief; it's about choosing not to believe in gods. It isn't a belief that those things are or are not something; it is really the absence of belief. It is a little stronger than agnosticism which completely shrugs it all off and doesn't even touch the subject. Atheists generally see the belief as irreconcilable with reality. (Of course there will always be some atheists who unswervingly believe there can be no god, but I don't think they are very common except perhaps among teenage males. :) )

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

Innocuously?
Uh... not so much.


"Atheists generally see the belief as irreconcilable with reality. "

So couldn't one say that atheists believe that the belief is irreconcilable with reality?

I get the distinct feeling that you don't know how you sound.
I just can't see people taking to the idea that if they want to be a better person (like you and most of the other atheists out there) they'll just have to stop believing what they believe.
Really people don't like to cozy up to people who seem to think they're better than them.

If your goal is to show people belief is not necessary for happiness and goodness, I get that goal, but I just don't see it as wise or helpful or at all kind to try and tell people their beliefs are making them less than you and your atheist friends.

It smacks of elitism and it's nauseating.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

I've just read a wonderful article that has persuaded me that religion is actually on the decline (contrary to what religious media report) so there is no more urgency about correcting the mistaken impression of morality springing from religion. It will simply fix itself, given time.

I actually don't think that people become good because they are non-believers. Like you, I feel people are good or bad regardless of their belief or lack of belief. What I tend to think happens to a lot of people (certainly not all) is that once they become happy, satisfied, educated, and tolerant they abandon their religions. Please understand that when I say that I am not saying that only non-believers are happy, satisfied, educated, and tolerant. I have several religious friends who have those qualities. I am simply noting a trend.

I won't bother to speak of this anymore because my clumsy words upset people too easily.

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

"It will simply fix itself, given time."

:) How lovely.

Thank you for explaining yourself. I think I'm a bit clearer on your thinking now.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

I have to thank you for pushing me to explain better. I honestly hadn't realised how prone to misinterpretation my statements were. Sometimes my inability to communicate truly astonishes me. Yes, I gave caveats that I didn't mean religious people were inherently worse people, but it still didn't read that way. If you had not kept picking me up on it I might not have realised what I was doing wrong. I shall attempt to be more careful in the future. I'm very grateful to you.

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

:) You're welcome. I'm grateful to have that valued. It's not always. So thank you too.

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

You may find this interesting:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=29389983&blogId=505210852

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

You're right. I enjoyed that immensely. Thanks for pointing me to it. Naturally I don't agree with all he said, but I definitely do go along with his main thrust. There clearly are several levels or grades of religion. And I do like the idea of looking at science as a kind of spiritual experiencing of reality. Certainly when contemplating reality as revealed by scientific experimentation I often feel awe at the majesty and complexity of the world around us.

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

I'm glad. Of course you're welcome.

" I often feel awe at the majesty and complexity of the world around us."

I can see that you do, which is lovely.
Your enthusiasm for life is apparent. :)

[belegdel.livejournal.com]

I often encounter this misunderstanding of atheists; that they are a sour, unhappy, uncharitable lot.

Good old fashioned deliberate shifting of meaning to reframe the debate, that.
Organised religions are exceedingly deft at manipulation, of individuals, whole populations and of language.

I think of religion as a "booster" for deep, subconscious human desires. Mostly because it's a vehicle for righteousness. It doesn't matter for good or bad, it just amplifies those desires. Almost always without any awareness to the individual. It's insidious in that way.

Personally, I think technology is increasingly replacing peoples need for the solace that religion once provided. Mostly though distraction from the inevitable.

And far as "humble" for athiests - most athiests recognise the futility in argueing with religious people. So what seems like humility might be more like resignation.

I think religion is way up there with hunting elephants with spears and bopping women on the head and dragging them off to the cave. The Human race doesn't need it anymore and needs to grow out of it to move on. That doesn't strike me as humble ;)

"Purity is a lie." - "Purity", New Model Army

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Wow. Very succinct and perceptive post.

Here is something I read recently that made me feel much better about religion:

Why the gods are not winning
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Ummm... just re-reading and realised there's one thing I don't think is entirely right. "Good old fashioned deliberate shifting of meaning..." While I do think there are some cynical religious people who do this deliberately, the bulk of religious people don't do it intentionally. Any person who disagrees with religious ideas is automatically classified in line with the prevailing dogma. When disbelievers don't swallow religious claims and have the temerity to voice their skepticism they are naturally considered intolerant or even rude.

I remember this happening to non-smokers when I was young. It is less so now, but can still be felt. When a smoker lit up around non-smokers if one of them asked them not to smoke please, it was considered intolerant and rude. Nowadays, thankfully, it is reversing and in many places it is considered rude to smoke, but it is still difficult to ask a smoker to put it out.

I wonder how long till religion ends up in the same state as smoking. They are both bad for one's health, and one should not do either around children.