Does the positive-atheist objective of a religion-free society infringe freedom of thought and expression?

Question

To positive atheists such as Dawkins and Dennett, an ideal society would no doubt be one solely based on science and reason, but in advocating this are they imposing their own belief system on others, and in doing so preventing freedom of expression?

If I want to believe that the world was created by pink elephants, who is anyone else to dictate to me that I cannot and should not have these ideas, however crazy they are. Surely all that atheist activists can argue for is a separation of religion and state, and non indoctrination of children.

Or is religion inherently detrimental to society as a whole, if so, how do you define what is a religion and what is not? Do you ban me for believing in the pink elephants or only ban me when I have a congregation that believes it with me?

Answer 1

You are free to believe that the world was created by pink elephants...just don't make me recite in my Pledge of Allegiance that we are One Nation Under the Almighty Pink Elephant...or make my kids say a prayer to your Almighty Pink Elephant...

Answer 2

The critiques of religion by Dawkins and Dennett (and Hitchens) are very superficial, and show that they don't even understand the terms of the debate.

Neither science or reason can ever prove conclusively that God doesn't exist, so it would be arrogant in the extreme to impose that point of view on a whole society. Where it has been tried (such as in the Soviet Union), it has failed miserably.

The United States was the first important country to explicitly permit freedom of religious expression in the Constitution, along with a refusal to establish any one belief system as the state religion. Surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly, the result has been one of the most religious countries in the world, with 85% of the population saying they believe in God.

In England, by contrast, which has an established Church, 85% of the people say they are atheists.

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from this except that there is no way for a government to compel its people to accept any point of view unquestioningly. If D & D want science to overthrow religion, they will have to convince the populace in the marketplace of ideas.

Answer 3

There is no such thing as pink elephants. And that can be proven. Even if you paint an elephant pink, the grey will soon show through. Don't you think that with all the work we all will have to do to bring peace on earth, that nobody will have time for pink elephants? Of course we could use elephants to bring food and medicine to the poor of Africa and Asia, and have those elephants painted pink.

Peace, only without religion.

And Merry Christmas

Answer 4

I don't think that Dennett would propose that we interfere with people's decision to hold and express religious beliefs, except of course in contexts in which those people were imposing those beliefs or their consequences on others. I have a hard time believing that Dawkins would either.

I do appreciate the concern you're raising, but I am not at all convinced that your premises are true.

We see plenty of attempts by religious believers to impose those beliefs, but I don't recall a single example of an atheist attempting to prevent a church from teaching its beliefs to its congregation. Do you?

Answer 5

I don't think you'll find the majority of atheists having any interest in imposing their views by force. They are hoping that the reason and logic which they feel to be the key ways of managing human affairs will, eventually, be seen as important by everyone. What matters to them is that laws and national institutions are informed by reason and not by religious belief.

There are very few actual organisations of atheists/agnostics. One of the largest groupings is the Humanist organisations affiliated to the IHEU (International Humanist and Ethical Union). They certainly have no interest in forcing people to believe what they believe, just in freeing up the national and community institutions from the specifics of any religion. So believing in pink elephants is fine and having a congregation who come to hear you preaching about pink elephants is fine - but it wouldn't be OK to insist on children worshipping pink elephants in school, having a pink elephant pledge as part of the national expression, etc. And any politician can be INFORMED by her/his belief in pink elephants, so long as they don't try to impose it on anyone else. Freedom of expression is absolutely basic to humanism, but there is a clear distinction between public space (where ways of thinking that are neutral with regard to religion must hold sway) and private space (where you can believe and worship as you wish, so long as you are not imposing that belief system on anyone else).

Answer 6

You should only be banned when you bring your pink elephants to schools, tell people who believe in green elephants will go to hell, and think you are better person than people who do not believe in elephants at all.

It might help if you would give us a few quotes showing where these two authors
A. have a belief system
B. they want to impose on others

Answer 7

Dawkins clearly holds the hostile view you suggest. Dennett, however, does not. He argues against ideology and the taboo against examining and criticizing one another's belief systems. I do not believe that anywhere he suggests that religion is inherently destructive. Believe whatever the hell you want, but when those beliefs begin to infringe on the rights of others then be open to discussion and self-examination.

Answer 8

I think a better way of putting that would be to say that society should not be based on religion.

In addition, I don't think that banning religion would be necessary. However, through eliminating God from society and government today, what religion you are would have no relevance and people could function more logically, humanely and therefore, more efficiently. Problems would be clearer and people would not live and govern in fear of a possible violation of God's supposed laws. Overall, the world would be more grounded and more free-thinking and progressive.

But there-in lies the problem of graduating our fair planet to this stage. I'm sure this will be thumbed down because people don't want to clear their minds of their paternal figure. They've learned not to dare function without him.

Answer 9

We only disagree about the things we don't know.
Disagreement only means one, the other, or all so involved do not have complete information. People do not argue about rocks being hard, water being wet, because they already know that. So why argue about what we know?
What we actually argue about is belief and what they don't know. Belief isn't knowledge. Belief is a conviction without any truth behind it. Belief is something you think is true or want to be true but it has not been proven yet. Don't people
with faith related beliefs argue? Knowledge does not need to be argued. Knowledge can be demonstrated. Belief can't be. That's why the Pope can't quit his day job. Do you get the distinction? Its a time bomb. You live with it awhile before you fully get it. Please be patient. Evolution isn't finished with us yet.
p.s. --- Reliable information lets you say, 'I don't know,'
with real confidence.

Answer 10

You, my friend, have it quite wrong. Dawkins et al wish no such thing and have expressed what they do want very eloquently. You are representative of a large group of people who cannot get past the perceived sleight against organized religion. This makes you appear shallow. Science does not, nor has it ever, nor will it ever, speak to faith-based systems.
It does however, revel in the comparison of the two methods of belief, and rightfully so.