Atheism evangelism followup

[dougo]

I posted a comment on hahathor's post about evangelical atheists, and since I never followed up on my post about it here, I figured I'd repost part of the comment here.

The thing that spurred me into asking [whether atheist evangelism was any better than religious evangelism] was this: I saw a documentary about evangelists where someone explained that, if you truly believe that someone you love will go to Hell because they are not a Christian, then shouldn't you do everything you can to prevent that loved one from going to Hell? It does make logical sense, if you accept the assumptions of Sin and Hell. And it made me think, hypothetically speaking, if I truly believe that someone I love is doing damage to themselves because of their religion, then shouldn't I do everything I can to convince them otherwise? For instance, suppose I knew a Christian Scientist who was suffering from a treatable illness, but who refused medical treatment in favor of prayer. If I cared about this person, shouldn't I try to convince them that medical treatment is far more likely to be effective than just prayer? Maybe this doesn't count as evangelism, since I'm not trying to convert them completely to atheism, just away from a particularly egregious corollary of their religion. But it falls into the category of "disabusing others of their beliefs". This is an extreme example, but I think this is the kind of motivation that spurs people to talk someone out of a religious belief: the stereotype is that religious people do some irrational things based on their religious belief that can sometimes be harmful to themselves or others, and if you think that this might happen, then in theory it's socially responsible to try to change their mind. But, yeah, in practice it's usually just rude.

To be clear, I personally think evangelism of any sort is usually a bad idea, not just because it's rude, but also because in general it's dangerous to assume that you know better than someone else what's good for them. But I think the motivations of atheist evangelists can be as virtuously-intended as religious evangelists who want to save your soul from eternal damnation.

Comments

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

religions do collective harm

All religions?

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Potential is different than what was said, though.

It was stated as an objective fact that religions do collective harm.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I was afraid for a second I might be thought of as talking out of my ass.

I think, however, it is important to understand that a movement has no actions - only the people who make up the movement.

Organizations are made up of people, and may decide collectively via various processes, to do things which cause harm - but the beliefs of the movement do not cause that harm.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

there are effects that arise from collections of people that are not typically assigned to individuals in those collectives.

[gemini6ice.livejournal.com]

He made the point I immediately thought when I saw your comment.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

i'm discussing religions as social institutions. not as idealized schools of thought.

the main point i'm making is that religions have the particular problem of falling back on "ultimate" authority when their positions are examined as illogical and irrational.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Actually what looked to be your main point, to me, was that "religions do collective harm".

Your explanation for why they do this, is what you have just claimed your main point was.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

...

this is the main source of their harm.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

i can't think of one that hasn't.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Absence of evidence (that you can't think of one) does not mean evidence of absence (that there are religions which have not caused collective harm).

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

in math that's a pretty good position to take.

in sociology where a great number of religions have been cataloged, not a really reasonable argument to make.

do try to think of a religion that hasn't cause harm. that catalog is available to you. i've spent a far bit of time looking myself.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

You made the argument that all religions do collective harm - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Has Soka Gakkai done collective harm?
How about Izumo Taishakyo?
Izunome?
Seicho No Ie?

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

before i go into detail, do you really know anything about those religions and their or did you pull them out of a google search?

their problem range between controversies wrt cult status to historic problems with the ainu genocide.

[rikchik.livejournal.com]

What harm has been done (collectively as a religion, not by individual members acting alone) by Quakers? Unitarian Universalists? Baha'i?

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

quakers have contributed to perpetuated the erasure of the native american genocide in particular. i'll have to dig for the citation if you really need it.

unitarian universalists that one relates to the mixed results that have had dealing with the "pagan"/non-western religions - which ranges from considering them lesser to doing culturally appropriative things with those religions.

baha'i are rather homophobic.

* * *

i think the unstated arguments you're trying make here are related to the intention of not doing harm and/or that good people can't do bad things.

intention is not enough to prevent harm. and good people can do bad things.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

intention is not enough to prevent harm.

This is true.

Opinions, however, are not enough to cause harm, either.
Actions cause harm, thought does not.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

their actions are historic record.

and how people think shapes how they act.

the results wrt homophobia are not slight.

and native americans do take harm from cultural appropriation and from the erasure of the native american genocide.

the line you make between thought and action is not as neat as you seem to imply.

[rikchik.livejournal.com]

This is a reasonable answer, though I might quibble about whether the harm done by UUs is based on UU beliefs or whether it's a general cultural failing. What do you have on the Discordians? (I know that some Discordians are assholes but I'm unaware of any harm done as a group, since they don't tend to form groups.)

I don't think any religion contains only good people or that good people can't do harm. I just doubt that there are _no_ religions that are harmless.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

i'm not sure i am willing to call discordianism (or fsm) religions.

* * *

however, while i'm highly critical of religions, i do not think they are w/o merit. and as such, i do have some problem with the ridicule discordianism and fsm heap on people who are religious.

* * *

at a very meta and personal level, i see great harm in anything that causes people to deal with concepts instead of reality (what ever reality really is). religions as institutions tend to mistake how they view the world for the world itself. in young religious institutions these problems tend to undeveloped, in older institutions that problem tend to be very visible.

[nosrednayduj]

My personal experience with UUism is that it's a great social network and the minister says some interesting things about our current times for 10 minutes a week, plus we sing a bunch of songs and do other rituals to make it up to an hour and 15 minutes. I'm the classic UU: "Athiest with kids." It's great that they exist, because having a social network is just great. Someone to feed you when your partner's in the hospital. People to say "hi" to at the grocery store. My normal social network is way too spread out: it's nice to have one that's in the town I actually live in.

As for paganism, there's a whole UU organization of pagans, called CUUPS (covenant of Unitarian Univeralist Pagan ...uh oh, I forget S, Society maybe?). There's a whole UU organization of GLBT(etc) called Interweave. There's a new UU organization for Polyamorous people (UUPA). There's a whole UU organization for those of Jewish extraction.

My sister-in-law-the-rabbi's beef with the UU's is that they go ahead and mix up everyone's rituals together. Pisses her off to no end when they have a Seder at the church. But I think it's cool. Is that what you mean by "doing culturally appropriative things"? It's more like, being a UU is like living in a comparative religions course.

balancing test

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

[replying to this and a later thread comment]

the reason for point out the harm isn't to balance it against the good, but to determine if the harm is avoidable or at least can be mitigated.

and in that determination, it's worth seeing if there are common features wrt religions as institutions.

* * *

i think it's morally/ethically bankrupt to think that a good offsets a harm.