3 ms·

"Religion provides people with a lot more than just explanations for the natural world," Schwadel said. "It provides community. It provides them with friends. I

"Religion provides people with a lot more than just explanations for the natural world," Schwadel said. "It provides community. It provides them with friends. It provides them with psychological support and economic support. It provides a lot more than simply an understanding of where they are in the world in relation to the afterlife." Daniel Dennett has talked about precisely this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tGpMcFF7U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tGpMcFF7U In particular, the major world religions are particularly good at creating community and support groups. In part, it's because the major world religions have an ideological emphasis on love and compassion. While this often fails when dealing with out-groups, it succeeds in making true communities where people feel emotionally safe. I say this as an Atheist: as a group, Atheists do many things that are the opposite of what religious communities do. In my experience, I am far more likely to be thrown under the bus in a group of people who announce themselves to be Atheists than, say, at some kind of a Unitarian or Episcopalian meeting. To go by my personal experience and the output of various YouTubers concerning the dramas and dissolution of various Atheist groups, it seems like Atheists spend a lot of time attacking each other and out-groups. In fact, this seems to apply almost universally to any kind of 21st century movement that spreads online and somehow involves politics. Outrage sells easily and goes viral easily. As a result, many 21st century movements, while professing the opposite, have a strong dependence on in-group/out-group hate.

splawn 10y ago
>it seems like Atheists spend a lot of time attacking each other and out-groups. Religious groups have done this famously throughout history at all scales. (from local in-church "drama" all the way up to full on international war) Edit: removed awkward wording
nyolfen 10y ago
> it seems like Atheists spend a lot of time attacking each other and out-groups. In fact, this seems to apply almost universally to any kind of 21st century movement that spreads online and somehow involves politics we are very tribal creatures, and it takes an accretion of theology -- religious or otherwise -- to counter our base impulses
temp246810 10y ago
It's one of the most annoying fallacies I encounter in everyday life: because I fail to see the value in something - surely that something has no value. It's such a narrow minded approach to problem solving. On top of the benefits you mentioned, there is a mindful aspect of religion that I'm sure contributes to people's overall feelings of well-being. Everyday it seems there is something new in the news about the benefits of mindfulness. I personally am not religious myself - but people should keep in mind that the extremists we encounter in the news aren't representative of everyone who is religious. I certainly don't begrudge anyone simply because they are religious.
- mrec 10y ago
  That's usually known as "Chesterton's fence" [1]: In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27...
  - temp246810 10y ago
    Interesting, always nice to have history/a name for a concept.
  - anotherevan 10y ago
    I really like that. Thank-you.
mrec 10y ago
You make an interesting point in the last para. I agree about the focus on outrage in modern identity politics (if you haven't already read it, SSC's The Toxoplasma of Rage [1] is the best overview I've seen), but I'm not sure it's ever occurred to me to include atheism in there. Possibly because in my case the "outraged" aspect of my atheism was mostly a reaction to having religion shoved down my throat at school, and had largely faded by the time we got the Internet. But possibly also because I want nothing to do with identity politics of any stripe and didn't want to make that particular connection. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  It's a good essay, but FWIW, a few months ago in one of his link dumps (which unfortunately I can't find atm) Scott approvingly reblogged an essay arguing that atheists should go back to being like outspoken and ardently anti-theist, like in the heyday of the late-2000's/early-2010's. I didn't agree with it myself, but it did raise some good points, and I wouldn't characterize Scott as being opposed to identity politics of all sorts.
  - mrec 10y ago
    I don't remember that one. If you should happen to find it again, I'd very much appreciate a link. Scott often approvingly reblogs things for being interesting and thought-provoking, rather than necessarily agreeing with them, but he does change his mind too. (Which is a good thing.)
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Scott approvingly reblogged an essay arguing that atheists should go back to being like outspoken and ardently anti-theist, like in the heyday of the late-2000's/early-2010's. There's nothing wrong with that on the face of it. However, I find that too many people in the 2nd or 3rd echelon and below are actually motivated by hate and self-promotion. (A minority, but enough to poison the well.) The same goes for most anything involved with identity politics.
graphitezepp 10y ago
I agree wholeheartedly and think it is quite the shame. A society losses a lot of what keeps it together when it losses its religion. Often I wish I was religious for the sense of community I feel is lacking in most peoples lives, but internally I can't bring myself to believe something that I view as ludicrous or let go of my undesirable feelings somewhat akin to contempt towards "the church". One day I hope we can get over out-group hate, but it seems to just be natural for humans . . .
redial 10y ago
Atheist are, almost by definition, not a group. They reject (for the most part) organization around theological ideas. The first step is to recognize that the sense of community is in no way tied to a particular religious view; it is intrinsic on any social group, and that you can, as many people in fact do, have community without religion.
vorg 10y ago
> the major world religions are particularly good at creating community It seems the word "religion" is even often defined by this behavior, given that the major religions all have very different beliefs. Of the big four (demographically), one believes in many gods, another believes in no God, another in one God, and the other in one God with a Son. Of course there's many differences within each big religion, e.g. Catholism vs. evangelical, Theravada vs. Mahayana. But how is a strict Theravada Buddhist really different to an atheist who practises meditation? Your statement is a tautology, the same as "the major community-creators in the world are particularly good at creating community."
Fezzik 10y ago
They definitely support the members of their group (except women, every major world religion has an atrocious track record of supporting women), but the world as we know it has been shaped by religions fighting with each other and killing each other en masse. They may form communities, but those communities do not historically get along with communities. And outside of Europe (for the most part) and North America (on the downswing here in the US), religions still do not tend to be too friendly to "others". To hint that being in a religion makes one more passive, or accepting, seems... odd. /updated grammar and for clarity

splawn 10y ago

>it seems like Atheists spend a lot of time attacking each other and out-groups. Religious groups have done this famously throughout history at all scales. (from local in-church "drama" all the way up to full on international war) Edit: removed awkward wording

nyolfen 10y ago

> it seems like Atheists spend a lot of time attacking each other and out-groups. In fact, this seems to apply almost universally to any kind of 21st century movement that spreads online and somehow involves politics we are very tribal creatures, and it takes an accretion of theology -- religious or otherwise -- to counter our base impulses

temp246810 10y ago

It's one of the most annoying fallacies I encounter in everyday life: because I fail to see the value in something - surely that something has no value. It's such a narrow minded approach to problem solving. On top of the benefits you mentioned, there is a mindful aspect of religion that I'm sure contributes to people's overall feelings of well-being. Everyday it seems there is something new in the news about the benefits of mindfulness. I personally am not religious myself - but people should keep in mind that the extremists we encounter in the news aren't representative of everyone who is religious. I certainly don't begrudge anyone simply because they are religious.

mrec 10y ago
That's usually known as "Chesterton's fence" [1]: In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27...
- temp246810 10y ago
  Interesting, always nice to have history/a name for a concept.
- anotherevan 10y ago
  I really like that. Thank-you.

mrec 10y ago

You make an interesting point in the last para. I agree about the focus on outrage in modern identity politics (if you haven't already read it, SSC's The Toxoplasma of Rage [1] is the best overview I've seen), but I'm not sure it's ever occurred to me to include atheism in there. Possibly because in my case the "outraged" aspect of my atheism was mostly a reaction to having religion shoved down my throat at school, and had largely faded by the time we got the Internet. But possibly also because I want nothing to do with identity politics of any stripe and didn't want to make that particular connection. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/

Analemma_ 10y ago
It's a good essay, but FWIW, a few months ago in one of his link dumps (which unfortunately I can't find atm) Scott approvingly reblogged an essay arguing that atheists should go back to being like outspoken and ardently anti-theist, like in the heyday of the late-2000's/early-2010's. I didn't agree with it myself, but it did raise some good points, and I wouldn't characterize Scott as being opposed to identity politics of all sorts.
- mrec 10y ago
  I don't remember that one. If you should happen to find it again, I'd very much appreciate a link. Scott often approvingly reblogs things for being interesting and thought-provoking, rather than necessarily agreeing with them, but he does change his mind too. (Which is a good thing.)
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Scott approvingly reblogged an essay arguing that atheists should go back to being like outspoken and ardently anti-theist, like in the heyday of the late-2000's/early-2010's. There's nothing wrong with that on the face of it. However, I find that too many people in the 2nd or 3rd echelon and below are actually motivated by hate and self-promotion. (A minority, but enough to poison the well.) The same goes for most anything involved with identity politics.

graphitezepp 10y ago

I agree wholeheartedly and think it is quite the shame. A society losses a lot of what keeps it together when it losses its religion. Often I wish I was religious for the sense of community I feel is lacking in most peoples lives, but internally I can't bring myself to believe something that I view as ludicrous or let go of my undesirable feelings somewhat akin to contempt towards "the church". One day I hope we can get over out-group hate, but it seems to just be natural for humans . . .

redial 10y ago

Atheist are, almost by definition, not a group. They reject (for the most part) organization around theological ideas. The first step is to recognize that the sense of community is in no way tied to a particular religious view; it is intrinsic on any social group, and that you can, as many people in fact do, have community without religion.

vorg 10y ago

> the major world religions are particularly good at creating community It seems the word "religion" is even often defined by this behavior, given that the major religions all have very different beliefs. Of the big four (demographically), one believes in many gods, another believes in no God, another in one God, and the other in one God with a Son. Of course there's many differences within each big religion, e.g. Catholism vs. evangelical, Theravada vs. Mahayana. But how is a strict Theravada Buddhist really different to an atheist who practises meditation? Your statement is a tautology, the same as "the major community-creators in the world are particularly good at creating community."

Fezzik 10y ago

They definitely support the members of their group (except women, every major world religion has an atrocious track record of supporting women), but the world as we know it has been shaped by religions fighting with each other and killing each other en masse. They may form communities, but those communities do not historically get along with communities. And outside of Europe (for the most part) and North America (on the downswing here in the US), religions still do not tend to be too friendly to "others". To hint that being in a religion makes one more passive, or accepting, seems... odd. /updated grammar and for clarity