Atheism as Worldview

Dear Richard Dawkins et. al.,

I agree with you completely on the subject of organized religion. It's dangerous, usually a bad influence, and we'd probably be a lot better off without it. There is no question in my mind that religious people do terrible things in the name of their religion, just as there is not one question in my mind that those things are terrible.

However, there is a great deal of difference between organized religion and belief in God. Unfortunately, you all don't seem to get that, or if you do, you need to make it more plain. I don't happen to believe that atheism is the only way to be a good person, any more than I believe than only religion causes people to do terrible things. But if you believe (funny how that word believe keeps cropping up) and want to try to prove that belief in God is the real ill in our world, you have a funny way of doing it.

Most radical atheists point out all sorts of wrongs committed in God's name, or committed by believers, and expect that it follows that God, or rather belief in God, is the cause of these terrible wrongs. They claim that belief in God is contrary to science because religious people regularly believe that science is wrong, or at least opposed to their religious world view. The radical atheists mix up a whole mish-mosh of belief, from fundamentalist religious types to people who are simply spiritual believers with no organized religion at all.

Guys, you're buying into their lie. You're so intent on proving that they are wrong that you're lending credence to their opposition. There is nothing in science which denies religion, and simple belief in a higher power in no way invalidates science. So atheism isn't a prerequisite for scientific learning. Then there's the fact that organized religion and belief are two separate things which you lump together, which weakens your argument. Then there's the fact that trying to prove God doesn't exist is like trying to prove God does: that way madness lies.

In short, boys and girls, if you want to convince people of the fallacy of organized religion, be my guest. Group thought of all stripes (including radical atheism and science) needs to be exploded (that's iconoclasm for you, always going after icons they don't personally hold dear) more often. So write that book. Call it, "The Group Delusion," or, "The Evils of Group-think." I might read it, and I'd certainly stand behind it (although groups ain't always a bad thing, Charlie).

Or if you want to write a book saying that belief in God causes people to do bad things, write that. Don't make a case for organized religion at all; talk about how belief in God makes people more willing to accept bad things in the world, or how belief in God keeps people from a healthy fear of death, or blinds them to the truth. Don't mention religion. Talk mostly about psychology. I won't personally agree with most of what you say, I imagine, since I don't think that belief in God (or higher power, what have you) is anathema to the truth, but I won't feel like the book is confused and pointless.

But what radical atheists world-wide are having a problem with is picking their fights. You can't take them all on at once. It stops being logical and starts being ranting. And sadly, guys and gals of atheism, you're just not terribly good at sermonizing that I've seen, and it's hard to convert people away from religion without giving them another one as a substitute. Hell, it's hard to convert people away from religion period, as evidenced by the various attempts at it.

Organized religion: mostly bad. Belief: indifferent. Radical atheism: just secular religion, therefore mostly bad. Philosophical ideals of any stripe when used as an excuse to do bad things: bad all over.

Love,

Me