Most atheists are not very well organized, seeing little point in organizing based upon a common lack of belief in contrast to groups which organize due to common beliefs and goals. The attempts of the religious right to impose their fundamentalist Christian beliefs on others is now giving atheists a reason to organize. The Sun-Sentinal reports on increased organizing by atheists:
Horrified by escalating religious violence and alarmed by the Bush administration’s “faith-based initiatives,” which make government money available to religious organizations, atheists are coming out of the closet — and organizing.
“Local groups are springing up all over the place,” said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. Active groups have grown by about 90 percent over the past six years, she said.
In the past few years, groups affiliated with American Atheists have taken root in Berkeley, San Francisco, Davis, Calif., and Silicon Valley.
National membership in the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of atheists and agnostics that monitors the separation of church and state, grew from 5,000 in 2004 to 6,400 members by the beginning of 2006, said co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor.
This organization may represent both a reaction to the religious right and an increased interest in atheism:
…atheism appears to be gaining ground also as a belief, not just a wave of political activism by those who fear the wall between church and state is being disassembled. Books challenging religion like Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins have been best-sellers on Amazon.com.
“Our primary conviction is that there is no supernatural world — there is only one world, the world that is the subject of scientific investigation,” Johnson said.
Two University of California at Berkeley sociology professors found that the proportion of Americans with no religion doubled from 1990 to 1998, but has leveled out at 14 percent.
The study “reflects a growing backlash against the role of organized religion,” said Claude S. Fischer, one of the authors. “People on the political left have reacted against the organization of churches on the right. Their statement is a reaction: `If that’s what religion means, then I’m not religious.'”
While the religious right gets the bulk of the attention, anti-scientific viewpoints which in their own way are as superstitious as those of the religious right expressed by new age advocates such as Deepak Chopra have also been the subject of criticism among many liberals.
The religious left (including mainstream religions that actually accept evolution, too; not just wacko New Agers) is uniting against the religious right, too. I know of at least 7 groups who have formed just since the 2004 election alone. It’s not only atheists who are appalled by the Religious Right.
It’s definately not only atheists. I’ve had a number of posts in the past about liberal religious groups opposing the religious right, but this is the first I’ve seen of atheists actually organizing.
I wonder about the New Agers in terms of how diverse they might be. While Chopra has shocked a lot of liberals by adopting the religious right’s arguments against evolution and making so many off the wall comments on biology, I wonder if they all feel this way.
This new ager is horrified by the right wing fundies and so are the all the new agers that I know and do business with. New agers tend to be very open minded however and less judgmental of other faiths and beliefs. Most new agers believe in the continuity that runs betweens all faiths and many have very diverse backgrounds including the sciences – both physical and metaphysical.
MBK,
While there are prominent liberal Christian groups which immediately come to mind, we should also note that religious opposition to the ideas of the religious right extends further. I recall posting material at Dem Daily in the past (post election when this was a bigger topic in the news) from conservative Christians who opposed the excesses of the religious right. Another source for material was reformed Jewish organizations.
(For the benefit of those around Dem Daily at the time, I recall one time I quoted a reformed Jewish organization, and Fritz objected with claims that us liberals cannot quote any religious group due to what he perceived as our opposition to religion.)
Pamela,
Fine that you are horrified by the right wing fundies, but how many new agers are willing to protest the anti-scientific writings of Deepak Chopra which do not vary in substance from the beliefs of the religious right? As the Salon article I quote in the piece on Chopra I link to in this post says, people who accept his writings are “goofier than the Christians!” Advocacy of ignorance and superstition is just as bad regardless of whether it comes from the right or new age left.
Ron
New agers have their beliefs just like Christians do, scientists do, etc. There should be room for all views when they are not mixed into politics. I do know that Chopra does not advocate teaching creationism in the schools as science. Whatever else he says on the subject shouldn’t play into politics in my opinion. Just like the Christian views shouldn’t. Chopra wrote a book a year ago about working towards world peace. That’s a worthy goal.
Pamela,
That is one load of bullshit!!!
It is not valid to draw an equivalency between the beliefs of Christians, new agers and scientists. Science is how we learn about the universe objectively, as opposed to resorting to superstition. Throwing out bromides like there should be room for all views does not change this. You either accept science as how we study the universe or you reject it. Chopra stands with the religious right on this.
One of the most important political battles of the day is whether we follow science or superstition. Many Christians are able to reconcile science and their religion. In contrast, both the religious right and Deepak Chopra are unable to accept science and feel that their religious beliefs require them to reject science in favor of superstition. Chopra is no different from the religious right. His anti-scientific rants would undermine the teaching of evolution and the efforts to keep intelligent design out of the classroom if not for the fact that virtually nobody takes him seriously any more.
Whether or not he supports world peace is totally irrelevant to condemning him for his hostility to science and reason.
Ron
Thanks but, all I really intended to do was to weigh in on the fact new agers have no love loss for the religious right. Not to argue about apples and oranges with you. From the stand point of this country being a free country where people can worship as they please, to call new agers names is tantamount to what the right wingnuts do to new agers and people of other faiths.
P.S. I’m sorry I wasted my time there really is no discussing anything with you with you going off on me. It’s clear you harbor a deep dislike for me. I’m sorry you feel that way.
I just have to say that I believe that a vast majority of the scientific community is atheistic or at the very least areligious. No one that I know of in any of the core sciences can countenance religious dogma. However, we are unable to raise our voices. The problem with speaking out about such beliefs is that the PC movement has made it tantamount to suicide to do so. If I said ‘there is no higher power’ in front of one of my lectures, I wouldn’t be allowed to run to my office to get my favorite coffee mug before I was kicked off campus. Wouldn’t it be nice if the group that is most educated, most rigorously trained to deal in fact, most accepting of new data (if validly obtained) could voice THEIR views?
The religious left, middle, and right have control of all power in this country, and until that changes atheists will be persecuted for expressing our beliefs. While it sticks in my craw every day, at least I don’t have to worry about being fed to lions… yet.
Pamela,
It is you who are trying to substitute an argument about apples for one about oranges.
Hiding behind false claims that this discussion has anything to do with freedom of worship is intellectual cowardice. You are quite selective in which religious groups are fair game and which are above criticizing. While any have opposed any criticism of a New Age proponent you are quite open to criticizing not only the religious right but also have used Democratic Daily to aide and abet anti-Semitic arguments.
Whether you have no love lost for the religious right is not the point. The question is whether we accept science or whether we allow religion (right or left) to continue to attempt to replace science with superstition. While the anti-scientific views expressed by you and Chopra are likely not representative of all new agers, in saying you dislike the religious right while supporting Chopra’s anti-scientific rants all you are doing is giving two anti-science cults which hate each other. The fact that the two of you hate each other does not change the fact that you are just two different sides of the same coin.
It is possible for new agers to accept both science and their beliefs. For example, in contrast to Chopra’s attacks on science, the Dali Lama has attempted to reconcile science with his beliefs.
Ideas matter and criticizing bad ideas is not restricting freedom of worship. The attacks on science from some religious groups is a serious problem which needs to be responded to. Hiding behind religion does not make it ok for either the religious right or Chopra to launch irrational attacks on science. Freedom of worship does not require or excuse attacking the foundations of modern biology. Nor does freedom of worship excuse your rationalization of Mell Gibson’s anti-Semitic rants, your trivialization of Holocaust denial, or your acceptance of various other anti-Semitic slurs I’ve protested at The Democratic Daily.
Just as this is not a matter of freedom of worship, it is not a matter of whether I like you or not. It is about ideas. I will speak out against attacks on science, as well as anti-Semitism, regardless of who the arguments come from. We’ve had plenty of arguments before over your support for Chopra’s attacks on science, your support for astrology, and your lack of toleration for opposing views at Democratic Daily. In light of that you shouldn’t be surprised if your comments on topic such as this are challenged.
prof wrote: …being fed to lions… yet.
What little I know about the conflict between science and religion hints that while we’re nearly back to the days of Copernicus and Galileo vs Aristotle’s sun-centered universe theory sold as Catholic dogma, we’re not quite there yet, as you said, Prof. I admire your optimism.
Ron wrote: Ideas matter and criticizing bad ideas is not restricting freedom of worship. The attacks on science from some religious groups is a serious problem which needs to be responded to. Hiding behind religion does not make it ok for either the religious right or Chopra to launch irrational attacks on science.
Bravo, Ron. Well said and needs to be said, sad to say, even in 2006.
We are all, of course, free to believe whatever we want to believe, in the privacy of our own minds or the collective of our own communities.
But beliefs don’t make science. And attempts to install a belief into science, (no matter who professes the belief), without allowing science to respond via its own parameters and prodicals, is nothing less than 13th century. (Or another century, I dunno really much about science.)
Pam wrote: New agers have their beliefs just like Christians do, scientists do, etc.
Yes, scientists have, or don’t have, beliefs. But their beliefs SHOULD NOT (yes, the dreaded “should” word) have zippo to do with their field of study, namely, science.
What is it going to take to separate the word “belief” from science?
kj,
Fortunately most scientists do separate their personal religious beliefs from science.
Then there are the excpetions. We have the Discovery Institute which uses pseudo-science to attack evolution. We have Chopra who attacks basic science with virtually the same arguments as the right iwngers. Pamela is upset that I refereed to Chopra as Moonbat in another post. Like it or not, Moonbat is how he is known in the scientific community. Trivia fact of the day: a Google search for Moonbat Chopra just came up with over 600 hits. In her emails Pamela also seems to have forgotten her vigorous defense of Chopra’s attacks on science, and her dismissal of all the scientists who have criticiized his writings.
Chopra gives Moonbat a bad name, in my opinion.
According to Wikipedia, “moonbat” was first used by Robert A. Heinlein, who also gave us the term “grok” (not to be, although often is, confused with “grog”).
My task is set. I’m going to write a story about a gentle Moonbat who lives only at night, sweeping into people’s dreams, because he (of course it will be a he!) is too afraid of being seen in the light of day. I will singlehandly take the word Moonbat and turn it into a fable that will be loved by many. (Of course, the moonbat won’t bark, a barking moonbat would ruin the story!)
I think I hear Moonbat calling me now!
Well, if Robert Heinlein vouches for Moonbats I’ll have to reconsider the current use of the term.
By the way, while he is most famous for Stranger in a Strange Land, which gave us the term grok, his best work is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, how did I miss that one?
I’ll do what I can re: Moonbat, for Robert Heinlein.
Thanks, Ron.
Moon in the title of the book and our discussion of Moonbats is purely coincidental. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress has always been one of my favorite books.
Oh! Good. So I don’t have to worry about ripping off Heinlein. I thought it might have been a story about a harsh, harsh Moon Mistress and how mean she was to the little Moonbats, who wanted nothing more than to fly around the moon at night and frolic. These Moonbats weren’t at all sinister, they just liked the swooping around stuff although the townspeople were afraid of them. And then one landed in an attic room where a young girl was reading, and he was hurt, and she had to hide him in her closet while he recovered until he could “go home” and okay now, I’m ripping off ET. But still. It’s good to know the Moonbat and The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress is purely coincidental, despite the Heinlein connection.