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

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

that analysis is at the personal level.

however, religions do collective harm - ala inquisitions, crusades, jihad, sectarian wars, etc. religious institutions have provided "justifications" for numerous atrocities. the particular nature of religious "justifications" that they are unassailable through empirical modes of evaluation.

[luagha.livejournal.com]

I see a lot of neglect for the good that religions do, and for any sort of balancing test.

If we're measuring and judging all the evils done by people inspired by the beliefs of the religion of (say) Christianity, how do we measure all the good done by people inspired by the beliefs of the religion of Christianity?

Plus, as we go forwards in time, the economic power of Western Christian thoughts and beliefs has increased, so they have the power to (for example) rescue at least tens of thousands of lives from the Indonesia tsunami. No other religion has that power on a purely physical level.

Religion as a mental virus

[taskboy3000.livejournal.com]

I know this comment isn't going to help, but here it is.

All religions encourage magical thinking. That is, they all insist that you believe something that cannot be proven through a rational investigation. The suppression of rational thinking what makes religions generally dangerous.

Can we find a religion that historically has caused more good than harm? Surely we can. Indeed, all religions do at least comfort their followers and that's got to count for something.

Unfortunately, the comfort given is a lie, albeit a small one. That benign lie often leads to more malicious ones and soon you end up with an entrenched clergy that harbors pedophiles or promotes genocide or exhorts xenophobia.

As far as I can see, religions to take the sting out of our mortality. If instead of running from this horrible fact, we embraced this one life of ours, perhaps we'd all be a little less crappy to each other.

(And no, religion isn't any more a basis for morality than another literature.)