RE: 300 years, yet atheism has not grown into a viable movement | Bart Campolo
October 17, 2016 at 2:46 am
(This post was last modified: October 17, 2016 at 2:53 am by mralstoner.)
(October 17, 2016 at 2:24 am)Astreja Wrote: In other words, what I'm advocating is the strategic undermining of one key factor that makes religion so appealing -- The promise of a better life. This is why I suspect that the Nordic nations have relatively little interest in religion: They've created that better life in the real world.
Perfect! Couldn't agree more.
But the advantage religion has over atheism is that it's relatively solid, concrete, defined, with tradition and longevity behind it. That makes it more stable and graspable, and thus more attractive, at least in that sense.
Atheism struggles because it tolerates everything, and tries to welcome everyone, so long as you're a nice person. But being so vague and nebulous makes it unattractive to most folks who want something more defined.
That is the key problem with building atheist/humanist communities i.e. anomie or normlessness. Anomie is kryptonite for groups. Groups dissolve without clear norms. See Jonathan Haidt for this.
What's the answer? Probably for atheist/humanist groups to be more specialised and defined, and just target a smaller group of like-minded people. These "come one, come all" type of humanist groups may work for some inner-city hipster groups, but not for the masses.
Regarding the Nordic countries, yes, if we go back a few decades when Western culture was still fairly stable and defined, then these countries were doing fine without religion. But my guess is those countries will now be struggling with the same anomie that other Western countries are facing, and thus the same obstacle to forming humanist groups. But at least they are proof it can be done.
