The Case for Missionary Atheism

Religion causes endless unnecessary suffering in the world.

Just turn on the news to learn about another violent terrorist attack by fundamentalist Muslims. Maybe religion also provides (false) comfort. But, can this be balanced with the evil caused byit? Ifthe police catch you while robbing a bank, can youjustifyyourdeedbysaying: but I have been helping the poor all my life? It seems an evil (in the sense of unnecessarily harming others) cannot be compensated with (supposedly) doing good.

There is no god. Let’s get over it. Grow up. And yes, it is impossible to proofthat there is not ‘something somewhere’. However, the burden ofproofis on the believers in supernatural fairy tales. And they have failed to provide even a shred ofevidence that has stood the test ofrational scrutiny for the existence oftheir imaginary friend/foe.

But what is religion? Here are some reflections. Religion is the beliefin the palpably untrue. Religion is believing despite the fact that there are no facts supporting that belief. Religion is institutionalized superstition. Religion is the manifestation of collective epistemological failure. Religion is a millstone to individual freedom. Religion is a lie that hampers individuals to develop their capabilities. Religion is existential illiteracy. Ifthe core of philosophy is critical thinking, then philosophy leads to atheism.

How is it possible that in the Age of Science, some three hundred years since the dawn ofthe Age ofEnlightenment the majority ofhumans still live their lives based on a lie, even in modern secular technological societies? It is time for missionary and militant atheism. Militant, not military, atheism should spread through peaceful dissemination ofcritical reasoning. Atheists should start to preach to the deluded and try to lead them to the light ofreason. Not by force, not by indoctrination, but through education and debate. We must stop adhering to the idea that religion is in any way respectable. It is not. Religion should not be respected; it should be tolerated as long as no one is harmed by it. Religious believers should be helpedto getovertheirmentalhandicap. Itseems amoralobligation for those who can help, to help. Atheism should not onlybe a personal life stance, but more like Jehovah-witnesses: it needs to be spreadforthe benefit ofthe believers. Maybe not from door to door, but from Facebook page to Facebook page; from debate to debate; from bookto book, from blogto blog. Ideas should always be criticallycontested and none ofthe religious truth claims can stand rational scrutiny. (If I am wrong, let me know and I will convert. Please check if the argument has not already been refuted.). Another point: Ifyou make the definition ofreligion vague enough, like ‘religion is about love’, then even the most militant atheists will turn out to be believers. So: first ask believers what exactlytheybelieve. engagée | 91

Gewalt.

A central part ofmuch religious moral education is desensitization regarding out-group others or in-group others who deflect from the norm, like homosexuals who risk social ostracism. Religion has a tendency to limit individual liberty, even with the threat ofviolence like in the case ofhomosexuality and religious ‘honour’ killings.

It is important to always take the perspective ofthe victim, not ofthe perpetrator. In order to find out who the victim is, try to change places. Can you want to be forced to marry? Or circumcised? Or stoned to death? Or killed because you love someone your family does not improve of? Or killed because you do not believe in the religion of your parents? Or killed because you have written an atheist blog? To go one level deeper, can you, from an external point ofview, place yourselfin the perspective ofa child in a religious family where you are brought up in alie, withholden from the truth, and with absurd rules, restrictions and taboos? Ifyou are a Muslim, imagine yourselfin the shoes ofan orthodox Jewish child. Can you? Can you want yourselfto be a child in an intellectually and morally closed family setting? –I knowwhat you are thinking! ‘What about being born in an atheist family? Is this not an indoctrination as well?’ Well, not necessarily. There is a fundamental difference between open and closed parenting and education. In a closed system, there is a mental and moral framework that is not open for debate. Parents force a (religious) worldview upon a child including shielding the child from information and enforcing irrational taboos on them, mostly sexual. In open parenting the parents strive to help the child to have the best available knowledge, knowing and accepting that their own knowledge is partlyfallible, and autonomous moral values for which they provide arguments. Open parenting is about trying to help the child to be an autonomous individual, who can make her or his own choices, including adopting a worldview. This is not the same as atheist indoctrination.

A world without religion would be a more peaceful place. It would be a much much better place! Atheism by itself is neither a worldview nor an ethical system. Atheism is just the idea that there are no good arguments for any supernatural entity whatsoever. Atheism is the conclusion ofan intellectual journey that religion is crap –all religions. Atheism is applied critical thinking concerning truth claims of the supernatural and the paranormal. Atheism is a sign ofmental adulthood. Atheism is the awareness ofthe unicity ofyour life and the acceptance ofits limits. You are not born an atheist. Thinking can –and will, ifyou dare followreason –lead you to atheism.

The reason for my atheism is not an interest in religion itself; it is a concern regarding the harm caused by religion. I am an atheist because religion causes harm to victims. Much violence in the world has religious elements in it. Islamic terrorists are Muslims, they falsely beliefthat what they do is good and that they will go straight to heaven to fuck the 70 virgins. No one is concerned with the question if these virgins want to have sex with a man who has just blown people to shreds. By the way, some scholars ofIslam have argued that there is confusion about atranslation and that it is not 70 virgins but 70 raisins…

There would be fewer victims, less unnecessary suffering in the world ifthere was less religion. That’s why atheists should come out oftheir closets and speak out against religion. To dare to question religious believers about the stupidity of their beliefs. We need to stand up for the victims of religion, worldwide. We need to question the basis ofmorality. Is it a set ofvalues from a religion, or is it a set ofvalues for which there are good arguments, such as human rights?

For many people religion is not a joke or a hobby. Many people take their religion much too seriously. Deadly serious. Have a laugh about yourself! It is their moral and intellectual straightjacket in which they walk through their lives and want to put others in that straightjacket too. Atheists should help to free people from their mental and moral limitations. To guide them to moral and intellectual freedom. To guide them to secularism, scepticism and humanism. Humanism is a non-religious worldview based on reason and science, a core value ofwhich is individual liberty. Atheism is not a life stance in the way that religions are. Atheism does not lead to a set of moral values or rules. Humanism does. And humanism does include atheism. By embracing humanism as an atheist, one frees her or himself from Stalin-accusation (‘Stalin was an atheist who killed

millions of people and he persecuted believers. Is that what you want?’ –Obviously not!). Most humanists are atheists, and many atheists are humanists.

Philosophyis the human endeavourforwisdom. Wisdomisactingwiselyonwell-reasonedargumentsinorder to pursue truth, happiness and beauty. The journey of philosophy starts with atheism and, hopefully, humanism. Philosophy is a method. Atheism and humanism are outcomes. Philosophers, or more precisely, ‘wannabe-philosophers’ who do not embrace atheism are like aspiringphysicists who do not pass theirfirst math exam. Or, to put it even more strongly, these wannabe-philosophers are like aspiring physicist spending their time and energyon tryingto construct aperpetuum mobile…. Philosophy ideally enlightens people’s minds, it should not darken it. Theologyis the opposite ofphilosophy, in that it does not strive for clarity. Theology is a mental blind alley. Theology thrives on ambiguity, gullibility and vagueness. Postmodernism is the mix of theology with philosophy: postmodernist thinkers darken concepts; they can make every topic inaccessible for clearheaded people. Postmodernists thrive because other people are needed to interpret and reinterpret their writings. Postmodernists provide work for academics and a feeling ofprofundity.

Myhope is that philosophers free themselves ofpostmodernism and theology and that they will share their knowledge and skills with a broad audience to enlighten them, to teach how to think critically, and thus be atheists. Philosophers can and should strive to make this world a better place. A world with less unnecessary suffering, and more happiness.

By the way: I have used a lot more words then John Lennon in his atheist manifesto Imagine.

| Floris van den Berg