In their new book Atheists, Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer shed light on the religious, social, and political values of the atheists in our midst.
Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers
by Bruce E. Hunsberger & Bob Altemeyer
Prometheus Books (June 2006)
Ppbk., 159 pgs.
ISBN: 1591024137
If you are expecting me to launch into a diatribe about people who do not believe in God or religion, forget it. I don’t much care what anyone believes so long as they are not trying to convert or kill me for what I believe. Unfortunately, history and our present times are a testament to the way religion has proven to be the justification for slaughters of every description.
Atheists is a groundbreaking study conducted by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, recently published by Prometheus Books and a slim, paperback volume best read by people such as psychologists, sociologists, and those interested in religious studies. Hunsberger was a professor of psychology until his death in 2003 as is his collaborator, Altemeyer, who teaches at the University of Manitoba. They had previously collaborated on Amazing Conversion: Why Some Turn to Faith and Others Abandon Religion.
To my surprise, virtually no studies have been conducted to determine why people become atheists. Most of us are aware of atheists only when one of them institutes a lawsuit involving the separation of church and state. The notion that children cannot pray in school, as do lawsuits to remove “One Nation Under God” from our coinage or to remove a religious symbol from display tend to annoy a lot of people.
Religion in American life became a hot political issue when the Supreme Court permitted abortions under the penumbra of “privacy” rights. It flared up again as a right to die issue, but again the courts ruled this was a private matter to be determined by individuals, family and the advice of physicians. It drives the debate about same-sex marriage. Despite the passion of the Religious Right, these issues, for good or ill, appear to have been settled in the minds of most people.
While America’s Founding Fathers all believed that religion served a useful purpose for the maintenance of a civil, secular society, they all knew well of the evils that ensue from too much church involvement in the affairs of state. They took care to protect freedom of religion, but also to create a form of government in which religious values might inform legislation, but not be “established” as a requirement of citizenship.
For the Founding Fathers, you could be a good American even if you did not believe in God. This is a good idea considering that two out of three American adults do not go to church every week. At 32%, those Americans who do attend church still outnumber the 20% in Canada and the 14% in England. By most definitions, America remains a nation in which religion plays a role in people’s lives, even if they are not active in either church or synagogue.
As the West either loses or ignores religious faith, the Middle East, the cradle of three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is a cauldron of religious fervor, pursuing an Islamic Jihad throughout its own region and exporting it in the form of terrorist attacks worldwide. Westerners are baffled and angered by a “religion” for which war and murder is a duty.
We have far less to concern ourselves when it comes to atheists. Indeed, one trait they tend to share in common is a saintly tolerance for all lifestyles including homosexuality, though “the rise in apostasy in the United states has occurred primarily among persons with weak ties to organized religion who have been driven from their faith by the behavior of the ‘religious right,’” according to the study.
Atheists are people for whom the teachings of religion simply do not make any sense. Burning bushes, resurrection, the trinity, life after death, heaven and hell, are illogical by atheist standards. Science, however, is based on the logic of reproducible results and, not surprisingly, atheists have a great fondness for science, noting among other things that there are many more galaxies than the one in which we inhabit a tiny planet.
Almost always arriving at their rejection of religion on their own, atheists tend to keep their views to themselves. The study found that atheists are more self-aware and more resistant to conformity than others. They also tend to excel at critical thinking.
“Religion’s big enemy in losing the battle for these minds proved not to be Satan, but its own scriptures, its various teachings, and its history,” say the study’s authors.
As best as can be determined, only 3% of Americans are atheists. What matters most to them is their personal integrity. They are, almost by definition, the least authoritarian of groups you can find and the least likely to attempt to convert someone to their views.
The common perception is that Christian “fundamentalists” are growing by leaps and bounds, but those in America who identify themselves in this fashion peaked in 1987, and their numbers have since dropped to 30% of all Christians by 2004. Of any religious group, fundamentalists are those least liked by atheists.
Interestingly, American atheists are more likely to object to abuses of power by government than most people. A “Born Again” President such as George W. Bush is viewed as a danger to our constitutional system by atheists, as are members of Congress for whom religion is a determining factor in law making.
Conservative and Libertarian political values, smaller and less intrusive government, fiscal prudence, laissez faire capitalism, and individualism would seem to suit most, but not all, atheists better than some form of socialism or one-world government philosophy.
Whether we want to or not, all Americans and other Westerners find themselves locked in a life and death struggle with the newest religion on the world scene, Islam, barely 1,400 years old and a strange conglomeration of things borrowed from both Judaism and Christianity, but mostly reflecting the warring society of Arab tribes in the seventh century AD. It, too, has devolved into many sects, all convinced they possess the “true” Islam as cobbled together by the self-proclaimed prophet, Muhammad.
One can only imagine what atheists make of this insanity, but whether for God or nation, both or neither, we shall be fighting for our lives for decades to come.
Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers is available on Amazon.com.
After thinking a while longer, perhaps I can concisely state the foundation for my morality. This is specifically for Mountain Man.
MM wrote:
“We have not yet arrived at the foundation of your morality. I happen to believe that without God as the foundation, there is no foundation at all. It’s up to you to prove otherwise.”
I’m not sure why the burden of proof falls on me by the way…?
Here it is (the foundation of my morality – the actual foundation is the first part, the a, b, & c are required to make it practical and just.):
-Each individual’s natural ability to communicate their disapproval of an action which affects them, by either direct or indirect means, provided
a. the individual’s past behavior hasn’t caused harm to another [against their will] thus negating their disapproval of the action which affects them and is meant to prevent further harm to others,
b. the necessity of the action which affects the individual is clearly ascertained, and
c. the consent of the individual whom the action affects can be clearly ascertained, and if not, the action must be postponed until such time.
This IDEA lays the foundation for my morality.
Also, this one’s for Phil;
We talked about the observability of love.
Love is observable – and hence provable – via introspection.
Take care,
william
William — If I rush into a burning building to save my daughter’s life, is it because I love her, I am responding to an innate drive to protect my genetic line, or because I would do this for any human being? You can’t “prove” any of these motives, yet you intiutively “know” that love is real, and may be one of the options. You are willing to bend the rules of “proof” to “observe Love via introspection”, but not to “observe God” via the existence of a universal moral code.
Your universality always ends up being what you, yourself, believe or don’t believe. That’s not an objective criteria, that an opinion. Phil
William,
I appreciate your kind words regarding my tone. May I remind you that you entered the discussion with this comment: “I would venture to guess that those making these comments don’t really know any athiests personally, and instead are consumed with reading each other’s hateful comments…,” so please don’t find fault if I or others match your tone in response.
So, why is it up to you to prove your case? You are making claims regarding your morality, therefore it is up to you to step up and explain yourself. Otherwise, how will we understand your position?
Anyway, I persist in my line of questioning because of this central thesis I stated above: “You assign moral value to certain things and then use those very things to establish your morality. Do you not see that this is a conundrum?”
For example, in #51 you write: “…the consent of the individual whom the action affects can be clearly ascertained, and if not, the action must be postponed until such time.” This is a moral imperative, it invokes moral precepts, and it assumes an underlying morality. This means it cannot be foundational, because it relies on deeper moral principles.
It is interesting to me how this conversation isn’t about religionists defending themselves so much as it is about atheists explaining their position. As I cruise atheist websites and engage in discussions, theists invariably are treated with scorn and contempt. You should note that in this thread we have engaged in civilized discourse. Makes me wonder what some of these other atheists are afraid of if they must resort to ridicule and derision.
Actually, William, I’d be happy to answer your questions, if you wouldn’t mind restating them.
Hi Mountain Man,
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the people whose comments you have read in the past shouldn’t resort to derision and ridicule, or scorn and contempt. Only respectful discussions are productive.
You wrote:
“For example, in #51 you write: “…the consent of the individual whom the action affects can be clearly ascertained, and if not, the action must be postponed until such time.” This is a moral imperative, it invokes moral precepts, and it assumes an underlying morality. This means it cannot be foundational, because it relies on deeper moral principles.”
The underlying morality (and I understand that this is fairly asbtract) is the IDEA which I presented in my last comment. The idea that consent is necessary and if unable to be given, by logic and reasoning, the action must be postponed until such time. The idea (that is, the entire idea I stated in my last comment) exists in and of itself and can be acquired through logic and reasoning.
You wrote:
“Actually, William, I’d be happy to answer your questions, if you wouldn’t mind restating them.”
The questions I asked you are in comment #40. I don’t require that you answer them here, but only think about them if you have a little extra “bathroom time.”
You wrote:
“I appreciate your kind words regarding my tone. May I remind you that you entered the discussion with this comment: “I would venture to guess that those making these comments don’t really know any atheists personally, and instead are consumed with reading each other’s hateful comments…,” so please don’t find fault if I or others match your tone in response.”
Well… yes, the first several comments I read and a few after that did seem to me like they contained a hint of contempt. I said that with the belief that if everyone here knew me personally, they wouldn’t have contempt for me. I will publicly retract that statement and acknowledge that perhaps my interpretation of the comments in question were in error.
You wrote:
“So, why is it up to you to prove your case? You are making claims regarding your morality, therefore it is up to you to step up and explain yourself. Otherwise, how will we understand your position?”
Very good. I must agree. I hope that I was able to explain myself sufficiently. And I will have to give your critique about my statements providing a conundrum more thought. But simply understand this; the dilemma of invoking God in science (or anywhere else I suppose) is that once one does this, the quest for a deeper understanding ceases. In other words, if, by our own intellectual downfall, we cannot answer something, to invoke God as the explanation is akin to “giving up.” I think we would both agree that we wouldn’t want modern medicine (for example) “giving up” when a natural answer not including God may be attainable. This does not suggest that God is never the answer, only that it is too easy to give up once one resorts to that answer.
Anyway Mountain Man, I think if we had the chance to become friends in real life, we would get along pretty well (do you like to fish? :) ). Once the need for “defending” oneself is removed, that leaves open the opportunity for a strong, healthy, and respectful discussion and that is where I believe we are at at this juncture.
Let me leave you all with a quote from Rene Descartes that I personally appeal to:
“If you would be a real seeker of truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things.”
Regards,
And thanks to everyone here for everything,
william
Thanks, William. I hope I am not flogging a dead horse by adding another post, but I would rather answer your questions here.
First, one point. You say, “The underlying morality (and I understand that this is fairly asbtract) is the IDEA which I presented in my last comment. The idea that consent is necessary and if unable to be given, by logic and reasoning, the action must be postponed until such time. The idea (that is, the entire idea I stated in my last comment) exists in and of itself and can be acquired through logic and reasoning.”
No, it’s not too abstract, but once again, it is not a foundational moral principle. It presumes a morality (i.e., “…consent is necessary…” is a moral judgment) and attaches conditions and methology for discerning its application (“logic” and “reason”). How do we know that consent, logic, and reason are good and moral without possessing a deeper moral context in order to make use of them? This is the quintessential conundrum to which I refer.
Referencing comment 40, your proof is not in sequence. It should be, “God exists; He is the absolute standard; therefore absolute morality exists.” Note that I did not say that we can always access the fullness of God or His absolute moral goodness, but only that it exists.
Now to your questions: “If two or more people agree to do action “A,” and action “A” results in no harm done to any of the parties involved, then why would action “A” be immoral?” well, if harm is the only feature of immorality, then your statement is true. If we can determine what is meant by harm, since harm is in the eye of the beholder, then your statement is true.
However, aside from these two difficulties is the fact that immorality can manifest without any action at all, and with a single individual alone in his room. I’m sure we can agree that hatred of blacks is immoral. No action on the part of the hater is required. Also, greed is immoral. It can destroy an individual, even if the individual never holds a dollar in his hand. Lust is immoral, even though the person never takes action. And so on.
Question 2: “If two or more people agree to do (or even want to do) action “B,” and action “B” is the option that minimizes the harm done to all the parties involved, or possibly it may harm the persons directly involved who have agreed to partake in action “B” but no one else (e.g., two boxers), then why would action “B” be immoral?” My answer is, “harm” is a subjective term. “Minimize” speaks to motive (Gee, Fred, I didn’t MEAN to hurt you.” How could we know if it is moral or not?
But beyond that, how is this consent determined? Why can’t a 12 year old boy consent to have sex with a 40 year old man? No harm is being caused, since the two agree, right? If John wants to die, and Mike agrees to kill him, is this moral? If 450,000 people vote in an election to legalize killing babies born with Down’s Syndrome, why wouldn’t that be moral?
In every case, if there is no absolute standard there is no way to ascertain the morality of any issue, because man is always the final measure, and man’s opinion can change moment to moment. This is shifting sands, and completely valueless in terms of governing human relationships.
Hi MM,
Well, I think we are just about to the point where we’re at a stalemate. The underlying issue being whether or not God is necessary for an absolute morality to exist.
On a practical level, neglecting the source of the morality for the moment, I feel the idea I presented is the [closest] we can come to, as what you and Phil might say, “reading God’s mind.” Or in other words, the closest we as humans can come to accessing what that absolute morality might be.
I believe you and Phil might agree with me on this based on the following quotes from you guys:
MM wrote;
“Note that I did not say that we can always access the fullness of God or His absolute moral goodness, but only that it exists.”
And Phil wrote in his article;
“…man cannot actually read God’s mind….”
Best,
william
Perhaps I can clarify my last comment;
Suppose you (MM) and Phil are correct in the source of morality. Now how does one go about implementing that idea?
That is where I believe that my line of reasoning has the advantage – and is thus more pragmatic (again, neglecting the source of the morality).
Best,
william
William —
As I explained in my article, one doesn’t “impose” morality. One educates. That’s why you don’t blow up abortion clinics even though you consider abortion to be immoral. Re-read that section of my article and you’ll see how this relates to the twin notions of God-given morality and free will.
And although man cannot read God’s mind, he can certainly discern God’s intentions by accessing the inner moral code he has given us all.
Phil