Here in Britain, from the mid-20th Century onwards, there has been a rise in various indicators of social instability: the divorce rate, violent crime, illegitimacy and so on. (Some) conservative commentators believe that the collapse in unifying frameworks such as institutionalised religious observance is the root cause of this apparent anomic disorder. How would you defend atheism against these critics?
Posted: November 24th 2008
logicel
Illegitimacy is such a quaint word! In all of my fifty-eight years living in this marvelous universe, I have not been aware of it being used to describe the present reality of single mothers/fathers until now. The offspring of unwed parents are not outside the law, for goodness sakes!
However, if unwed mothers/fathers do cause societal instability, then I would put the blame on religious folks who insist on keeping their children ignorant of the responsibilities tied to having sex in order to keep their children 'pure’ as sexual relations outside marriage is a no-no because of their unproven, steeped-in-blind-faith beliefs.
Prior to secularization, there were many closeted divorced people—married only in name, and horrendously alienated from each other in their married household, heaping great psychological damage upon their children and each other. In other words, secularization permitted the open diagnosis of existing dysfunctional marriages, therefore the increase in divorces does not equate to an epidemic, but instead points to proper diagnosis and existing treatment as divorced folks are known to remarry (sometimes even to each other again).
As for violence, in general, humanity is getting less and less physically violent.
Though secularization is prominent in the Western world, the majority of people still profess god belief. No one is breaking their arm or leg to act 'secular.’
EDIT: Since atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), it really has no role in societal stability. One can be conservative and atheistic. In fact, one can be atheistic and be anything. It really does not mean anything other than a lack of god belief. It does not mean that an atheist does not accept many of the positive aspects in which religious people also happen to believe : mainly the Golden Rule.
Posted: November 25th 2008
Reed Braden www
there has been a rise in various indicators of social instability: the divorce rate, violent crime, illegitimacy and so on.
Correlation does not equal causation. Conservative hoo-hahs never seem to understand that.
But, for the sake of argument, I’ll play along.
Maybe the secularisation of society has increased the rate of divorce and illegitimate children (_even though statistics in the US show that the Protestants lead in these fields_) and maybe, just maybe, a rise in Atheism has lead to more violent crime (_even though the statistics in the US show that Atheists comprise anywhere from 4-12% of America, but less than 1% of the prison population_). If I disregard the statistics and take the conservative hoo-hahs at their word, I still have a strong argument:
Since the secularisation of the West, how many “witches” have been burned? How many gays have been stoned to death? How many Jews have been exterminated? How many blacks have been lynched?
Posted: November 25th 2008
brian thomson www
This looks like another version of the old assertion, that “people need religion to be good”, that comes up quite often. My usual answer to that is: perhaps some people do need that crutch, and can not behave without it, but: so what? That tells you something about the people in question, their background, and how they were taught to think (or not), but it does not make the religion true or valid.
Some people thrive under a totalitarian system, some need drugs, some need other people to motivate them. A person who depends on some constant external guidance to behave like a decent human being is an incomplete human being, in my opinion.
Posted: November 25th 2008
SmartLX www
I defend against such critics by pointing to the European societies that have been secularised even more than Britain as counter-examples. The opinions of conservative commentators do tend towards one conclusion, but actual empirical studies say something else entirely.
To summarise the above study, crime rates, divorce rates and even teen pregnancy rates are highest in the most religious countries, and vice versa. “Christian Europe” in particular has gone from all-time high levels of the above to historical lows over the last couple of centuries, during the process of near-complete secularisation in many countries. The same is true in Japan among other places worldwide.
It isn’t just religious involvement in state matters that has changed, it’s rates of belief as well. In Scandinavia non-theists make up 70% or more of the population, without any apparent ill effects on the society as a whole.
Compared to these examples, Britain’s shift from almost entirely religious to moderately less so is a far smaller change in the local spiritual landscape. If the indicators of social instability you mention were due to the decline of religion, by extrapolation we would expect parts of western Europe to be in tremendous turmoil. The reality is just the opposite.
For an inverse example, which may or may not apply, consider the former Soviet Union. When it collapsed, the ubiquitous Communist opposition to religion vanished and churches were free to do their good works. It is of course in the former Soviet Union, in formerly secular eastern Europe, that we see the real turmoil. I’m not saying that religion caused it, but any correlation between religiosity and societal stability appears to be flatly contradicted.
Having made my case against any deleterious effects of atheism on society, I’ll add the obligatory reminder: even if the conservative commentators were right, and atheism were outright anathema to civilisation, it would have the same probability of being correct as it has now.
Posted: November 24th 2008