300 years, yet atheism has not grown into a viable movement | Bart Campolo

[Whateverist]

Why does simple disbelief require a "movement," anyway?  All that's actually needed is to protect the rights of everyone, believers and non-believers alike, so that one's worldview can be expressed without negative consequences, and so that the laws of the land neither favour nor disfavour people on the basis of belief.

What you're espousing is secularism i.e. separation of church and state, etc. That's great but it doesn't address some problems such as:

1 - Some people (especially young people) want a more defined identity and ethos, than is provided by chaotic individualism.

2 - Deep community, with lifelong connections, is hard to find in atheism's individualistic anarchy, and requires a group with clearly definied identity and ethos.

3 - The survival and growth of atheism depends on the survival and growth of atheists. While we've had an upswing in the number of atheists leaving religion, those atheists are relatively less prone to making babies. So the future of the atheist movement is grim.

Why aren't atheists making babies? There's a few reasons, but one main reason is that atheists are not part of a cohesive movement that acknowledges that history is a story of group fitness, and only fit groups survive. Individualism dies. Unless atheism (humanism, more specifically) sees itself as just one group in a competitive world, then it will wither and die and be replaced with more organised/fit groups e.g. Islam, communist China, Putin's Russia, and maybe Christianity in some parts of the world, etc.

It's a big topic, and I've barely scratched the surface of it.

Suffice to say, atheism/humanism doesn't have a bright future unless it starts acting as a cohesive group. (Not that one homogeneous monoculture is the answer, probably a co-ordinated network of speciated atheist/humanist groups is the way to go).

Read some of Jonathan Haidt's research e.g. the most successful groups (in terms of longevity) are those that make the most demands on their followers.

We love our individualism, but individualism is not sustainable, from an evolutionary point of view.

The Western world is in decline and retreat. Muslims are invading Europe. China and Russia are expanding and will soon pose an existential threat to the US, as it declines. And at the heart of the Western world is a vacuum of identity. The West doesn't know who it is anymore, except for our treasured individualism. And so the West will wither and die because it has no core identity. We've left religion, but not replaced that with a strong enough identity to sustain Western civilisation. The West is being torn apart, because of vacuous atheism/humanism.

Evolution is a story of group fitness. Measure up, or we die.

Pretty grandiose to think you can help all the poor lesser evolved masses out this way, and condescending to think they need it.  One thing evolution has never been is the result of deliberate scheming.

[mralstoner]

Pretty grandiose to think you can help all the poor lesser evolved masses out this way, and condescending to think they need it.  One thing evolution has never been is the result of deliberate scheming.

You may have a point there. The stupid people do seem to be running the show, more often than not.

You can drive with them off the cliff, if you wish, to preserve your non-condescending ideals.

[mralstoner]

History demonstrates quite clearly that belonging to a group is no guarantee of a consistent ethos.  Religious schisms happen all the time.  In the long run I think we have to take responsibility for our own philosophies of life.  If we find groups that help us express those philosophies, that's fine.  If not, better to go it alone.

I never said groups were stable entities, but our individual and collective needs can only be met, in the long term, with the backing of group strength.

As for the "individual taste" aspect of music, one of the things I enjoy about playing in bands is that we push the boundaries in that regard.  Not everyone will like every score that we work on, but we almost always grow in musicality from attempting them anyway.

There's nothing wrong with creativity and individuality, but these can only occur within a civilisation, and a civilisation is a living organism that requires upkeep and defence against decay and competitors, and that requires a strong group.

[Whateverist]

Pretty grandiose to think you can help all the poor lesser evolved masses out this way, and condescending to think they need it.  One thing evolution has never been is the result of deliberate scheming.

You may have a point there. The stupid people do seem to be running the show, more often than not.

You can drive with them off the cliff, if you wish, to preserve your non-condescending ideals.

But if I were to consent to accept your description of what I'm doing as "driving off a cliff with them" I might just as well accept any theist's admonition to get saved.  Fortunately for me I turn down all such unsolicited advice from every stripe of asshole.

[mralstoner]

But if I were to consent to accept your description of what I'm doing as "driving off a cliff with them" I might just as well accept any theist's admonition to get saved.  Fortunately for me I turn down all such unsolicited advise from every stripe of asshole.

Ah, an ideology of individualistic irrelevance. As you wish.

[Silver]

Ah, an ideology of individualistic irrelevance. As you wish.

You make no sense.

[Astreja]

I never said groups were stable entities, but our individual and collective needs can only be met, in the long term, with the backing of group strength.

With atheism as a minority position, currently we can aspire only to be a strong minority group.

I think we should be identifying and reinforcing common ground that we already share with many believers -- in other words, identifying real-world values that improve quality of life for everyone, and focusing on implementation.

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.

[mralstoner]

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.

[Silver]

But the advantage religion has over atheism is that it's relatively solid, concrete, defined, with tradition and longevity behind it.

There's that delusion just hanging on for dear life.

[Whateverist]

But the advantage religion has over atheism is that it's relatively solid, concrete, defined, with tradition and longevity behind it.

There's that delusion just hanging on for dear life.

You mean that one can manufacture solidity and long-lived tradition programmatically?  Yeah even the lesser evolved would see through that.