Religion, a Threat to Human Dignity and Freedom?

Recently, my friend Travis and I attended a talk by Dan Barker at the BSU Student Union building. Dan was once a born-again Christian, a missionary, a minister, and writer of Christian children's songs. He is now a prominent atheist, a speaker and advocate for the separation of church and state. I was impressed with his unique story of belief and disbelief, and the powerful influence I think such a story could have on those who are currently mired in superstition.

Travis was one of the last of the audience to ask Mr. Barker a question. He was looking for some advice about the proper tact to take with believers when attempting to convince them of their errors. Travis admitted that deep down he feels like a car salesman, that he just really really wants to change people's minds, to sell them on disbelief; and that it becomes frustrating when, after spending hours discussing and debating religion and science with believers, no apparent progress is made. A very good question, I thought, especially since I feel the exact same way.

What are Travis and I doing wrong? Are we being foolish, thinking that we can change minds with evidence and reason; as opposed to, say, stories designed to illicit an emotional response? Is it the fact that our aim is obvious to those we talk to, that our effort is a frontal assault on their pride and their sense of identity, which when threatened puts up an impenetrable wall around their beliefs? Perhaps our approach is all wrong. Should we turn it down a notch, scrap the mission all together, or just hope that by simply being ourselves-moral, friendly nonbelievers-we'll subtly influence others to reconsider their beliefs? What do you think...Dan Barker?

The answer seemed so easy. Dan told Travis to stay true to himself, to continue doing what he felt was natural and right. Everyone is different, he said, so there's not one best approach to discussing belief. Different tactics work for different people. We can't expect to hit it off with everyone, but invariably we'll have a positive effect on someone.

It was a prudent answer, given that even the most respected figures within the atheist/agnostic movement shy away from telling people what to do. Atheists are generally anti-authority and pro-free thought, so it ought to be a default mode of operation to proclaim the option of choice whenever such an option could possibly exist. Only after the Q&A session, when Travis and I were talking with Dan Barker, and only after I declared in my usual half-facetious/sarcastic way that I would happily continue to act as a militant atheist, did Dan prescribe a particular course of action. Simply, he suggested not doing anything that would hurt anyone.

Part of me wanted to ask, "Really though, as far as tactics go, what DOES work with believers?" There has to be a better and worse answer, based off of Dan's experience. Unfortunately, we didn't get to hear it. I was left with the impression that Dan wasn't so concerned with changing people's minds.

However, in the telling of his story, Dan did reveal how he personally decides when its necessary to stand up to religion, and consequently, when not to. He stated that unless believers are outwardly causing harm or violating the separation of church and state, then he saw no reason to act or proselytize. And this upset me a great deal...

Here was a prominent atheist who seemed to not grasp or fully appreciate the real evil that religious belief represents for humanity. How could someone of his experience and intelligence not abhor religion as much as I do? Of course, I understood that the average person would more likely find Dan's position quite reasonable and view my vitriol with great suspicion and distaste. Only extremists, like religious fundamentalists, get this emotional in their opposition to other belief systems, they'd think.

But my disdain of religious belief, and my mild disappointment with Dan Barker's final assessment of the extent of religion's inherent harm, is, in my mind, perfectly justified and thoroughly understood. I attempted to explain to Travis, after Dan's talk, why exactly religion deserves more active, aggressive opposition than merely keeping it out of government. Religious belief, I said, erodes the dignity and liberty of human beings by assimilating and controlling both minds and bodies, all in the name of...nothing. Religion often turns adherents into victims or suckers who fall for knowingly nefarious or established institutional scams. Religion degrades the concept of the individual-a concept I consciously choose to believe in, despite threats from those who (often on the side of science) proclaim there is no free will as well, as those who (conservatives and the religious) aggressively or passively act towards greater social conformity. There is a light in our eyes that comes from awareness, of knowledge of truth, and of pride in self that I believe religion threatens to extinguish.

And I got to thinking in the days after Barker's talk that, yes, those are some pretty big charges against religion, charges that really ought to be fleshed out if I expect anyone to understand them or take them seriously. I realized that there was a book, at least, in the making. An entire book would be necessary to 1) document particular instances during which religion has in fact made fools of adherents throughout history (think showing up for the Second Coming, only to trudge back home to make dinner); 2) explore the concepts of individuality and free will, explain why they're important, and describe how religious belief undermines both; 3) document particular cases in which religion was used to scam people out of their assets and/or lives; 4) discuss cults, examining specific organizations and the various things they make programmed members do; and talk about the differences between popular "cults" and common religion; 5) discuss guilt and shame, as tools used by religion; 6) discuss the concept of shame; and 7) explore how precisely religion has physically enslaved individuals (women, children, even men...).

The book (or multiple essays/blogs) would center upon the constant threat religion and faith represent to human dignity and freedom. I have little confidence that an actual book will come from this project; but I'm still excited because, as far as I know, there hasn't been a book dedicated to this specific subject, and if it were to come about, well, I think it could be influential. And I think it would compliment the subject matter of the recent best selling books by the "new atheists" very well.

Anyway, a guy can dream. What's important now is that I have a sense of direction with this project. We'll just have to see if it leads anywhere.