Religion, Atheism and The 2nd Best solution?

Question

A key theme that runs on R&S is an idea propped up BOTH Christians and Atheists about some sort of future period of vindication. Christians express this in downright Apocalyptic terms at times, or in a mild sense a Society, Nation, Earth that is fully Christian.

Some atheists follow suit, adopting a sort of "the time is now" rhetoric speaking how the world's religions will be swept aside by further education in the sciences.

Both are based on an unsubstantiated hope - much like a belief in the Communist Utopia, "The Internet shall unite the world," Anarcho-capitalist society, etc.

Its rather funny actually, as it assumes some sort of "victory" which cannot be overturned by the mistakes of future generations.

What i want to ask, as a pragmatist, to all is this: If you can't get rid of the other side, can't rob them of their influence either:

Then what's the 2nd best solution?

For the record - I am an atheist, a rationalist, and a pragmatist.

And i have firm belief in mankind's ability to screw anything up.

I'm also Anti-Telological, i don't believe in some sort of pre-determined end, which is why i ask this question.

Note: I reserve the right to ignore the following:

1.) Stereotypical Theist Response: "Christ is coming blah blah blah, you do not see the truth"

2.) Stereotypical New Atheist response "We can educate them away from such foolish beliefs, we have reason on our side."

Why? Cause i have history/psychology/sociology on my side - and the failures of humanity to live up to an invented goal tends to outweigh the successes.

Elena - Both Enlightenment intellectuals and Communist thinkers were both chirping about the "death of religion."

And last time i checked, Meteorology ain't exactly the most reliable of sciences either. ;-)

Forecasts of the "End" come and go. Humanity's flaws remain.

Yes, i'm new. I have a tendency to hang around the Philosophy boards.

And i lurk on the dreaded Polls and Surveys section too. yes yes i know, R&S TRAITOR that i am ;P

Answer 1

Interesting, insightful question. I agree with you.

I don't think it's "2nd best", because I'm not after getting rid of the other side, but what I want is for atheism to be widely seen as the perfectly reasonable and moral stance that it is.

We could have a LOT of progress on that front without having to stoop to impinging on others' rights to their religious beliefs. In fact we could have an almost complete change in how atheists are treated and still not have even begun to deny rights to others.
====================
Are you new here? I don't remember seeing this kind of intelligent comment before.

Answer 2

One side is right. If, for example, the moon really was made of green cheese, that fact would either have to be suppressed, or it would eventually come out.

If the world were largely populated by people who believed that it was actually made of rock, then the cheesy truth would have to be kept from the populace, or it would eventually leak out and become generally accepted.

Religion has survived as long as it has - despite being based on myths and wish-fulfilment fantasy - for several reasons, including:

o The facts were not known until quite recently
o The facts are relatively complex, and require careful examination and background knowledge in order to be accepted. The myths are easily understood by almost anyone.
o The myths and fantasies are attractive and provide comfort, while the facts are rather bleak and unpleasant.
o A vast organisation exists with a vested interest in seeing to it that the myths are propagated, and the facts are suppressed.

In these circumstances, the facts face an uphill struggle to be revealed and accepted. The current situation is that in some parts of the world the myths are effectively unquestioned.

At the same time, availability of education has been improving steadily. It's now possible for most people to discover the facts if they wish to. The Internet - as you point out - is a conduit for facts, even though it's also a very effective delivery system for myths as well.

Ultimately it may become necessary for the vested interests to take more active steps to suppress the facts and push the myths. They may be successful, but only at the likely expense of the progress of civilisation: the world's infrastructure is maintained to a significant extent by those who accept the facts.

Few people are capable of carrying out the necessary research to keep the human race healthy and fed while basing their worldviews on myths. The mythological worldview loses all of its integrity when examined in fine detail. Myths will not keep society going in the face of the serious energy, food and environmental challenges that are gathering strength.

There's reason to be optimistic that a fightback by the proponents of fact has already started, and that the myths will crumble in the face of it. It's far from certain, however.

CD

Answer 3

I don't want to get rid of the other side. Regardless of belief in science or God, we are all humans, and we all came from the same place, whether we agree on just what that place is or not. I think if one or the other were to be proved right then this world would become a very boring place and will have lost it's mystery, whether it is the mystery that lies in the next scientific discovery, or the mystery that lies in a seemingly answered prayer. When we have actually figured it out, there will be no victory for anyone. There will be nothing left for all.

Answer 4

I believe that religious/magical beliefs are a form of mental illness. I believe in Richard Dawkins idea that religion is a mind virus, which he called a meme. I hope that a cure is found.
To those who will read this and claim that it is ridiculous for me to state that 90%+ of humanity is mentally ill, I have this FACT to throw back. 90%+ of ALL humanity is infected with physical parasites.
Illness is the rule, not the exception. Why should mental health be exempt.

The only solution is curing people, also known as educating. Believing things that are patently false, and ignoring contrary evidence, is nuts. This is not in any way, shape or form ameliorated by being in the majority.

Answer 5

I think it is easy to look at the decline of religious influence accompanied by the increase in education and technological advancement, and find a correlation. If we extrapolate, it only shows a continued decline in religious influence along with increased education and technology. That doesn't seem like an unsubstantiated hope, but a simple, logical forecast.

It's not a "solution" per se, just the way the world appears to be going. I guess we could call it a "victory" of discovery.

Answer 6

You already made a good note that it is all about "uniting" mankind. Actually it will not happen untill "seeking for identity and integrity" is not over. So, as everything in the nature, that process may succeed, or not. The mankind is still in diapers, still in pursuit of individual or local collective integrity instead of global collective unity. That is why it seems that it screws up everything it touches. Things might get better if the "child" is smart and lucky enough, or might get worse if it remains schizofrenic (about the identity and integrity issue).

Answer 7

I don't know that I necessarily believe there will be a time where religion wont exist anymore. I hope, but I don't know.

Remember the age of reason? Religion was slowly going to the wayside, but then WWII came along and everyone got religion again.

Religions and belief systems come and go. There have been many and there will be many more probably.

Answer 8

Eliminating organized religion is attainable. Take away all special tax statuses and you will find organized churches all over the world dismantled and they will revert back to smaller community based centers and allow people to practice whatever faith they want in their own locales. This isn't the end all but eliminating problems improves life everywhere.

Atheists don't want people to stop believing they just don't believe. The Christian organized religions are only business to acquire power and control, they don't actually care for their believers but only need them to further whatever causes they pick and choose.

Answer 9

Freedom is merely a be conscious for the unknown maximum suitable expression of what human beings merely adventure whilst they decrease down on that which might effect them..... a physique of innovations in case you will. And jointly as theists willingly incarcerate themselves with layer upon layer of residing regulations..... maximum atheists are certain by ability of the shackles of society themselves, and relegate themselves to an identical, if lesser, function of enslavement. For genuine freedom comes merely in loss of existence, and from the launch of the self from all barriers and the shackles of existence.

Answer 10

I agree with you mostly. My stance for the record is the theist can have their beliefs but keep their beliefs out of my backyard and out of my life. I am would like more respect I am sick of being clumped with Agnostics and other groups that have really nothing to do with Atheism and how true Atheists define it.