You wrote:
"Secular humanism and atheism in general do not reach out to the majority of people - because they can't. One reason is because the majority of the world is not atheist or secular humanist;"
When Christianity was in its infancy the majority of the world was not Christian and most had never heard of Christianity. Did that impede the spread of Christianty?
Most humans have an predisposition to engage in some sort of religious and/or supernatural belief. Those of us who don't are a minority worldwide.
I have never heard anyone make such a ridiculous statement. Where is your evidence? "Sheltered backgrounds," such as Jewish holocaust survivors--who formed the backbone of secular humanism in the US and elsewhere? Sheltered backgrounds, such as people who have been indoctrinated into and seriously harmed by religion but who managed to extricate themselves from it?
You must be aware that the majority of atheist advocates and humanists are white, educated, and from upper-middle class backgrounds. There are numerous sources for this online.
The entire so - called secular, atheist movement has recently been charged with being "too privileged".
You must be aware that the majority of atheist advocates and humanists are white, educated, and from upper-middle class backgrounds. There are numerous sources for this online.
The entire so - called secular, atheist movement has recently been charged with being “too privileged".
True, but there are many reasons for this, e.g. white males have always enjoyed the privilege of political and social power in this country and are better educated, have control of the media and use it to political and social advantage. Minorities, female minorities especially are just breaking into this "privileged" class as the humanist movement develops within their community. Humanism, agnosticism and atheism are growing within these groups according to David Niose a leading member of the humanist community. NPR ran recently an excellent program on the growth of humanism in the African-American community.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7870949
Cap't Jack
The entire so - called secular, atheist movement has recently been charged with being “too privileged".
In post #5 I noted how secular groups recognized this and are dealing with it openly. Quite different to how religions suppressed women and minorities officially for decades. Religion has always been part of the power structure, how much more privileged can you get? So, it took people who were able to gain some independence from that structure to build a movement that could speak against it and not be burnt at the stake, or whatever modern equivalent there is, like not getting promoted. Now that the movement has momentum, it is getting safer to speak up, student groups are growing rapidly.
Also, I think you are only looking at the US. It's pretty normal to be atheist in Europe and China.
How about discussing this topic from a slightly different aspect? durkan3562, what do you think about the very real harm religions do to each other and the non-religious in comparison to secularist/humanist peoples? Is that harm somehow diminished by their friendliness?
’m disappointed by the lack of depth in these replies to my post.
I’m not sure what you wanted, but your title,
Religious groups are friendly - where’s the alternative?
doesn’t seem to be looking for depth. The first half calls for a very obvious return question: “Did you ever meet a used car salesman who was NOT friendly?” It’s apparent that when you first meet many people who are extremely friendly, they are trying to sell you something.
If you are trying to sell yourself to atheists, agnostic, or humanists, it’s YOUR job to be friendly, not theirs.
Occam
They aren't necessarily pretending to be nice, but they are motivated by a presumed pay-off. If that is their motive they are not just being "nice." They may well be nice people, anyway, but they are displaying it in a way that frankly gives me the creeps. There is a large element of "look at me being generous" and "holier than thou," in their actions and justifications.
You assume that non belevers don't know why people join religions. We know only too well, many of us having been taken in ourselves or indoctrinated into it as children. There is the community and comfort factor, which can be seen to be benign, but there is so much more to it, much of it not pretty. The community and comfort factor is the lure but there is something ugly waiting around the corner. I don't for a minute think most religious people are aware of this. Most have been taken in by and manipulated by the leaders and are unaware of the bigger picture. They pay a high priice for false "community" and false comfort.
Lois
Your cynicism and, frankly, your unabashed contempt for the millions of people who spend their lives being enriched by their beliefs and doing great good to others because that religion inspires them do you no credit whatsoever. When you have cared for a dying leper or mentored a sex offender released from prison, then you can get all high and mighty about the motives of these supposedly stupid believers. I ask you, no I beg you: read "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel C Dennett, as recommended by Richard Dawkins.
"Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings." Yes, but add to that "Religion inspires cathedrals, Handel's "Messiah", the founding of Western education and most of all, love." Your bitterness may be from experience. I've had terrible experiences in church too, but I know that's not the whole story.
Great, another one making claims and assertions and acting surprised that anyone would question their argument. How does one even respond to someone who says, "do you seriously believe..."
What do you think I'm going to say, "Oh right, I don't seriously believe, the cat just walked across the keyboard and typed it, sorry, go back to your anecdotal evidence please, I find it so fascinating"
Why are you so angry? I'm a secular humanist, I do not believe in any supernatural entity. however, I do believe that love is better than hate. I'd like to see the end of religion and the spread of Enlightenment ideals into the Muslim world, into the Christian enclaves, everywhere. But that project is making very little progress. One reason is that humans have yet to come up with a better alternative to religious practices, which offer much more than intellectual truths. Religious people cause a lot of hatred, division, war, you name it. Religious people also cause a lot of love, caring, art, you name it. Only when we humanists are prepared to recognise the good as well as the bad will we be able to make something better. Harsh words on a message board are not constructive.
Have you yet read "Breaking the Spell"? Plenty to learn from Mr Dennett.
Hey Durkan,
Thanks for your post. You're touching a topic that occupied me before but I never gave it much thought. Since you're in the UK and I really have no clue about what it's like there I don't know in how far my response means anything, but I'll drop my few cents anyway, writing from a U.S. point of view.
Your point concerning religious groups and prison (or addiction for that matter) I think is valid. I would never argue that there are no secular counterparts, but they seem very rare, and sometimes, especially the Catholic ones, they really don't care if you convert. That always boggled my mind, as the so-called "Evangelicals" have lost all integrity in my mind with their sneaky conversion tactics preying on those in distress, be that here or overseas in their neo-colonialism. But anyway.
I think that these people who really care actually believe in and try to follow those beliefs. They don't care about "saving people" or getting them to join a church. They care about helping them. And yes, they do talk about God, but mainly for comfort, and usually it's about how much God loves you... sin is about the farthest thing from these people's minds. I've not heard one condemning word from them ever. You can spit in their face and they wipe off your tears.
I'm sounding like a missionary... ;)
Well, to put this into perspective, these sorts of charities have helped me a lot (in regard to addiction), and they have helped my love (in regard to prison). And why? Because seemingly nobody else does care. Whether you lie drunk in a ditch or get thrown out of prison with no skills, no guidance, no money, no home, no shit but "get the fuck outta here"... the only "solution" to most people is to "lock this trash up again" before the stench keeps hanging on other people's clothes. - Prison politics. - And the only people that do write and care and sometimes rip their shirts off are often very religious. Mind me, most often they do not belong to missionary churches but simply do this as a service, no nothing wanted in return. And it nearly makes me cry, as I sometimes wonder if this Jesus actually does mean something.
On the other hand, once "settled", I find no use for this religion, other than indeed that, being a part of humanity to help people, and for that I think religion has much use. - Neither me nor my love are religious. The "Evangelicals" really turned us off big time. Fuck that bullshit. Wear your pretty little pink Jesus panties and wish the world would be like you. But that sarcasm fades quickly when I see a genuinely religious person. I might not agree with them, but I respect them. Why? Because they respect me. That's the whole point.
Whatever goes on with you, dude, take care. Take heart.
Peace, brother.
Michelle
Thanks Michelle, your experience is similar to my own. I'm an ex-offender, living now without family or friends. But tomorrow I'll be seeing a volunteer frm a Christian group for ex-offenders, a man who has been there for me for quite a while now. He knows I reject his evangelical faith, but he doesn't reject me as a person. We have interesting chats, and it's a world apart from the formal, uncaring approach of my social workers.
If there are fewer humanists visiting prisons it's because there are so few atheists, humanists or secularists incarcerated in prisons. Non religious people are underrepresented as prisoners compared with their percentage in the population. Christians and Muslims are overrepresented. Counselors can't go into prisons and start counseling prisoners without being invited. I can't imagine any Christians or Muslims asking for a Humanist counselor. If Humanist counselors were to go into prisons without being invited they would be considered to be proselytizing. If there is no one there who wishes to be "counseled" by a secular counselor it would be a waste of time for them to force their way in.
As for the presence of nonbelievers in soup kitchens and the like, they are there, working with social services groups and npn religious non-profit organizations such as the Food Bank in the Los Angeles area. The reason you may not notice that they are there is because they don't advertise themselves as doing good works as religious people do. They simply get on with the good works and don't go around saying, "Hey, look at me doing good works," which is a particularly galling Christian practice.
Lois
Most prisoners - certainly here in the UK - are not strongly religious and there is nothing to stop non-religious organisations from creating prison visiting groups. "If we build it, they will come" to quote the film Eight Legged Freaks. Anyone with experience of prison from either side knows that prisoners are desperate for personal care from people on the outside. Few would attend debates on the faults of religion, but many would flock to tea & biscuits, a short video and a chance to chat,. Or even writing to prisoners, many of whom have no-one at all. Religious affiliation is not a pre-requisite for this work, or for any other voluntary work.
I would like to see the evidence that the proportion of non-religious volunteers in these hard, good works is even equal to their proportion in the general population. If it is so, I will happily modify my views (as I did when I gave up my faith).
How about discussing this topic from a slightly different aspect? durkan3562, what do you think about the very real harm religions do to each other and the non-religious in comparison to secularist/humanist peoples? Is that harm somehow diminished by their friendliness?
That's a topic which has been covered in depth elsewhere, and I do not dispute it in the slightest. My point is that, far too often, humanists show contempt for religious people and cynicism for the vast number of good works which such people do at great cost to themselves. Some of the replies in this thread show that clearly and it does our cause enormous harm.
Great, another one making claims and assertions and acting surprised that anyone would question their argument. How does one even respond to someone who says, "do you seriously believe..."
What do you think I'm going to say, "Oh right, I don't seriously believe, the cat just walked across the keyboard and typed it, sorry, go back to your anecdotal evidence please, I find it so fascinating"
Why are you so angry? I'm a secular humanist, I do not believe in any supernatural entity. however, I do believe that love is better than hate. I'd like to see the end of religion and the spread of Enlightenment ideals into the Muslim world, into the Christian enclaves, everywhere. But that project is making very little progress. One reason is that humans have yet to come up with a better alternative to religious practices, which offer much more than intellectual truths. Religious people cause a lot of hatred, division, war, you name it. Religious people also cause a lot of love, caring, art, you name it. Only when we humanists are prepared to recognise the good as well as the bad will we be able to make something better. Harsh words on a message board are not constructive.
Have you yet read "Breaking the Spell"? Plenty to learn from Mr Dennett.
I haven't read that, but how about you? Have you anything other than that? It seems you are unaware of what is going in the movement and how rapidly it is growing. You only see "one reason" because you aren't looking. And, take a look at your own "harsh words" before you go accusing others.
We don't need an alternative for religious practices. Religious practices have always been a co-opting of existing practices. Gathering and singing were not invented by Moses. Neither was art or caring or loving. There have been religions that are bad at those things, they died out. You have to offer people something or your organization won't survive. So, tell them you have the answer to the problems of the world, the things that are troubling their mind. Of course, Jesus never comes back, the end of times never happens, it's all promises and no delivery.
’m disappointed by the lack of depth in these replies to my post.
I'm not sure what you wanted, but your title,
Religious groups are friendly - where’s the alternative?
doesn't seem to be looking for depth. The first half calls for a very obvious return question: "Did you ever meet a used car salesman who was NOT friendly?" It's apparent that when you first meet many people who are extremely friendly, they are trying to sell you something.
If you are trying to sell yourself to atheists, agnostic, or humanists, it's YOUR job to be friendly, not theirs.
Occam
Occam, your reply hasn't even begun to answer my point. Most religious people are not trying to sell anything at all apart from what they see as the best thing that ever happened to them. Of course that's based on something that isn't true, but please don't show contempt for them. Religious people are no more stupid than any of us here. Would they continue with it their whole life, often at enormous, sacrifical cost, if it didn't provide them with something they couldn't find elsehwhere?
I'm a new member to this group, but I'm surprised and disappointed at the lack of self-awareness. Again, I must point you to Dennett's "Breaking the Spell," which makes this point much better than I can.
I haven't read that, but how about you? Have you anything other than that? It seems you are unaware of what is going in the movement and how rapidly it is growing. You only see "one reason" because you aren't looking. And, take a look at your own "harsh words" before you go accusing others.
We don't need an alternative for religious practices. Religious practices have always been a co-opting of existing practices. Gathering and singing were not invented by Moses. Neither was art or caring or loving. There have been religions that are bad at those things, they died out. You have to offer people something or your organization won't survive. So, tell them you have the answer to the problems of the world, the things that are troubling their mind. Of course, Jesus never comes back, the end of times never happens, it's all promises and no delivery.
We do need an alternative for religious practices. As they have been central to human culture for tens of thousands of years, offering many benefits in return for the payments, how can you expect them to die out if little better is around? If you think religion is simply about "gathering and singing", you'll need to look a bit further. What we see as established religions today is the result of millennia of evolution.
We do need an alternative for religious practices. As they have been central to human culture for tens of thousands of years, offering many benefits in return for the payments, how can you expect them to die out if little better is around? If you think religion is simply about "gathering and singing", you'll need to look a bit further. What we see as established religions today is the result of millennia of evolution.
I do think religion is more than "gathering and singing", I'm just not wasting my time explaining it to you. You asked a question, then showed that you were completely closed to any answer other than the one you had already decided. You don't present any real evidence, just that religion has been around and that it seems nice. And you read a book. If you want to actually make a case for something, develop your theme, gather some evidence, put some numbers behind it. If your argument has merit, it should survive. Or, in your pursuit of defending yourself, you will discover the truth. Either way, you win.
Here's what I'm talking about]
I haven't read that, but how about you? Have you anything other than that? It seems you are unaware of what is going in the movement and how rapidly it is growing. You only see "one reason" because you aren't looking. And, take a look at your own "harsh words" before you go accusing others.
We don't need an alternative for religious practices. Religious practices have always been a co-opting of existing practices. Gathering and singing were not invented by Moses. Neither was art or caring or loving. There have been religions that are bad at those things, they died out. You have to offer people something or your organization won't survive. So, tell them you have the answer to the problems of the world, the things that are troubling their mind. Of course, Jesus never comes back, the end of times never happens, it's all promises and no delivery.
We do need an alternative for religious practices. As they have been central to human culture for tens of thousands of years, offering many benefits in return for the payments, how can you expect them to die out if little better is around? If you think religion is simply about "gathering and singing", you'll need to look a bit further. What we see as established religions today is the result of millennia of evolution.
Who is "we"?
Atheists and Humanists manage to survive without religious practices. Do you think we're using magic, or what?
Slavery was also the result of millennia of evolution. How are we managing without it now?
Lois
Who is "we"?
Atheists and Humanists manage to survive without religious practices. Do you think we're using magic, or what?
Slavery was also the result of millennia of evolution. How are we managing without it now?
Lois
Good one Lois. I think gets to the heart of problem with Hume's law, the idea that you can't get an "ought" from an "is". The problem is, he didn't say you can't, he just said it's not automatic. You have to look a little harder at what "is" you are looking at before you propose an "ought". Slavery was argued for throughout history as something completely natural, the way it is and how it ought to be.
Christianity has sold itself as the source for good. It was easy when you could convince people hell existed and you were the way out. You could make up any rules you want, call them "good" and get people to believe it. Now that we have been examining what works for individuals and societies for centuries, I can't figure how they keep pulling it off. Their main tool seems to be indoctrination of the young, and their starting to seriously fail at that.
I'll give Durkan a little bit of credit. I think Scientology is a good example of what happens if you take away religion, but don't also take away superstition. But that grew 50 years ago, I don't think it could be done today. His idea is to replace religion with some other sort of superstition, some sort of in-group that appears to be holding the higher ground. My preference is to tell people they all have the moral authority within themselves, they don't need external validation.
If someone can point me towards a multitude of secular alternatives, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. We say that morality does not need a religious basis, and of course it doesn't. But the practical evidence in our societies is sorely lacking.
(First off, sorry if this has already been addressed. I haven't read all the posts yet.)
Actually, most of the charitable, advocacy, and aid work worldwide is done by secular organizations (and I'm not even counting secular government volunteer aid organizations like Peace Corps, Americorps, and various UN organizations)--despite the fact that something like 90% of the world's population is religious. Just a few examples:
ACLU
Amnesty International
The Bone Marrow Registry (BeTheMatch.org)
Doctors Without Borders
Goodwill Industries
NAACP
Oxfam International
Planned Parenthood
UNICEF*
The Union of Concerned Scientists
And those are just some of the better known ones.
Just saying.
*edit:Okay, UNICEF is a quasi-governmental organization. But still.
If someone can point me towards a multitude of secular alternatives, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. We say that morality does not need a religious basis, and of course it doesn't. But the practical evidence in our societies is sorely lacking.
(First off, sorry if this has already been addressed. I haven't read all the posts yet.)
Actually, most of the charitable, advocacy, and aid work worldwide is done by secular organizations (and I'm not even counting secular government volunteer aid organizations like Peace Corps, Americorps, and various UN organizations)--despite the fact that something like 90% of the world's population is religious. Just a few examples:
ACLU
Amnesty International
The Bone Marrow Registry (BeTheMatch.org)
Doctors Without Borders
Goodwill Industries
NAACP
Oxfam International
Planned Parenthood
UNICEF*
The Union of Concerned Scientists
And those are just some of the better known ones.
Just saying.
*edit:Okay, UNICEF is a quasi-governmental organization. But still.
I'm not sure how else I can express the point I have been trying to make. In what way could any of these groups be regarded as providing anything like the complete package that is currently on offer from religous groups? How could Oxfam or Planned Parenthood offer close personal relationships, somewhere to go when all else fails or a sense of shared purpose beyond the everyday? Yes, of course, all religious groups are based on what is in reality a lie - something supernatural - but as someone with long experience of Christian churches and of secular activism (Oxfam, Greenpeace and others), I was much more fulfilled and satisfied deep within myself by the churches. No doubt the same could be uttered by a Muslim or any other religious person.
All historical attempts to erase religious beliefs have failed miserably and usually with enormous suffering imposed. My simple point is that religious groups offer something deep which is of huge benefit to the many people who choose, stubbornly, to adhere to it. If we humanists are equally stubborn in (i) failing to acknowledge this, (ii) treating religious believers with contempt and (iii) not even considering that a superior alternative needs to be dreamt up by humanity including us, then nothing will ever change and religion will continue to exert a powerful grip on the human race. My reading of humanist literature - Dawkins, Sam Harris and so on - leads me to conclude that this fairly obvious point has yet to be grasped. Few believers are interested in being convinced by argument, as that is not how they became religious believers. Just telling someone they are wrong and should give up the inspiring, thrilling ride of a lifetime that the religious experience can often be, is never going to be very effective. Religious experience, neurologically, touches parts of the brain that others have to use drugs to stimulate. It'll take more than a debate between Mr Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury to prise people away from that.
I'm not sure how else I can express the point I have been trying to make. In what way could any of these groups be regarded as providing anything like the complete package that is currently on offer from religous groups? How could Oxfam or Planned Parenthood offer close personal relationships, somewhere to go when all else fails or a sense of shared purpose beyond the everyday? Yes, of course, all religious groups are based on what is in reality a lie - something supernatural - but as someone with long experience of Christian churches and of secular activism (Oxfam, Greenpeace and others), I was much more fulfilled and satisfied deep within myself by the churches. No doubt the same could be uttered by a Muslim or any other religious person.
All historical attempts to erase religious beliefs have failed miserably and usually with enormous suffering imposed. My simple point is that religious groups offer something deep which is of huge benefit to the many people who choose, stubbornly, to adhere to it. If we humanists are equally stubborn in (i) failing to acknowledge this, (ii) treating religious believers with contempt and (iii) not even considering that a superior alternative needs to be dreamt up by humanity including us, then nothing will ever change and religion will continue to exert a powerful grip on the human race. My reading of humanist literature - Dawkins, Sam Harris and so on - leads me to conclude that this fairly obvious point has yet to be grasped. Few believers are interested in being convinced by argument, as that is not how they became religious believers. Just telling someone they are wrong and should give up the inspiring, thrilling ride of a lifetime that the religious experience can often be, is never going to be very effective. Religious experience, neurologically, touches parts of the brain that others have to use drugs to stimulate. It'll take more than a debate between Mr Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury to prise people away from that.
I did not yet get a chance to get around looking at what the humanist community has to offer in relation to what is being asked for in this post.
However, with regards to religious aid/relief groups providing a 'deeper' connection to its members, yes, most likely that exists. Probably, the relationships in religious ciricles are 'disillusionally' stronger to any other type of group memberships that exist out there, minus the Army ofcourse. One in which social connections are always more stronger compared to that of normal civilian relationships. Simply because of the genuine circumstances under which they are developed.
Muslim NGOs are aplenty that are super-keen on showing-off their piety and humility in helping out anybody from the Muslim brethren. That itself is the problem. Their aim is to create segregating religious fault-lines within society, i.e.: the 'us' and 'them' divide. If there agenda was anything but to genuinely help out the bereaved individual who comes to them for support, they would not ask for an ideological alliance in return. But that is rarely the case. Reason being, individuals who come across such religious groups are already in a state of despair that makes them extremely susceptible to the brain-washing that these groups profuse. The fact that the individual of concern being approached by these groups is already in a desperate state, makes the new found help from such groups so much more precious and dear. And hence the illusion of a deeper and true relationship.
It doesn't hide the fact though that these so called religious aid groups come in with an upper-hand. Rather than behaving responsibly and neutrally, they very keenly pump down their respective rheotric down the individual's throat. Thus, barely making it a fair deal. Maybe self-less alternatives such as those shown by religious groups do not yet exist. But that does not mean that the ongoing work of faith-based NGOs and the likes cannot be candoned for what it really is. One of seducing an individual who is already in a susceptible state.
Maybe that's the reason why Da'wah groups (Islamic preaching groups) have such a tough time getting new memberships to their group when they operate in well-educated and economically healthy neighbourhoods. In those areas, they are more often than not actively evaded by the residents rather than turned towards for help, as the desperate conditions do not exist. The low membership count of such groups in developed areas compared to a higher count in rural or disaster-stricken areas, shows that for them its just a matter of finding the 'right' conditions where their ideology can be most likely flaunted.
I was much more fulfilled and satisfied deep within myself by the churches. No doubt the same could be uttered by a Muslim or any other religious person.
All historical attempts to erase religious beliefs have failed miserably and usually with enormous suffering imposed. My simple point is that religious groups offer something deep which is of huge benefit to the many people who choose, stubbornly, to adhere to it.
Maybe the fact that you are having trouble expressing your point should lead you to consider the value of your point. We’ve explained the problems with the “complete package", but you keep repeating that like it means something. I made some great friends in college organizing fund raisers for Oxfam, FYI. You say, “satisfied deep within myself" without defining it or distinguishing it from other types of satisfaction.
Do you know that not everyone is “satisfied" by church. Even with my Christian friends, I know people who complain about what they don’t get from it, and a few who just leave and nobody ever calls to check up on them. Some package. You got lucky when you found a good community and my guess is you are unaware or not looking at any of the bad that came with it.
Comparing religion to drugs should tip you off to the problem with your argument. Would you go to a AA website and argue for how great it is to be drunk? Would you tell people they aren’t going to get anywhere making logical arguments for why they should keep their addiction in check? Would you suggest medical science MUST come up with a drug that gives them the benefits without the side effects?