Apparently, from all accounts, Eastern Germany is one of the most godless places on earth. In one survey not one person younger than 28 evinced belief in a god, and the percentage of those who self-described as atheist was 59%! This is discussed by Peter Thompson in the Guardian at Comment is Free, based on a study by Tom Smith at the University of Chicago (the link takes you to the study in pdf, but the tables referred to in the study are not included). Peter Thompson ends his article with the thought that, rather than the question being whether or not Europe should be considered a Christian entity, the question should instead be
whether it is folk atheism that represents the future of Europe.
What is interesting is that atheism itself seems to be one of the major impediments to the reunification of Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whereas other Soviet Bloc states have largely reverted to their pre-Soviet religious identities, including Russia, in which the Russian Orthodox Church has shown, not only signs of revival, but also of renewed identification with the state, in Eastern Germany atheism put down deep roots. Indeed, atheism and German Democratic Republic nationalism were closely identified, and the Jugendweihe, or youth consecration ceremony, marked the transition from youth to the assumption of more adult responsibilities.
The intersting thing about the Jugendweihe, which was actually founded in 1852 by a Protestant Pastor in Nordhausen as an alternative celebration to the religious rite of Confirmation (Konfirmation) for non-religious families, is that, though it largely fell into disuse after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it has been revived to fill a felt need. Many people who had no religious affiliation had begun to ask what they could offer their children to mark the transition from childhood to young adulthood, a celebration of their passing on to a new stage of life. However, though the Jugendweihe ceremony has been revived, it is no longer permitted to be celebrated in schools, nor do the kids get a holiday as is given to their religious age-mates when they are confirmed.
The reason I mention this is that, whether or not one is religious, it is perhaps still beneficial that important transitions in life be able to be celebrated. This is probably the area in which nonbelievers fail to make use of important discoveries of the ways in which world-views can be instilled in people, and perpetuated over time. One of the criticisms that the religious make of nonbelievers is that nonbelievers do not provide ways in which people can belong to something that is greater than themselves. Religions provide this opportunity, and have become expert at doing it. It is not unreasonable to say that religious loyalties are given to the wrong things, but it is unreasonable, I think, to suggest that the human dimension of what religions can accomplish in the way of providing the basis for communal celebrations, are simply part of the detritus of religion without which we would all be better off. This is a mistake.
Perhaps what I am saying is related to Jen McCreight’s original Atheism + suggestion, which was so quickly taken up by the New Statesman, where, of Atheism +, we are told:
Atheism+ is, at its most basic, an attempt wrap things together more formally, to create a movement that prioritises issues of equality and does so from an explicitly non-religious perspective.
Ron Lindsay suggests that this suggestion for the formation of a new movement in atheism will probably have less impact that it should, simply by the context in which the proposal was made, since Jen McCreight spoke, in her original post, of the famous elevatorgate “kerfuffle”, as well as remarking on some unfortunate remarks made by Paula Kirby about “feminazis”, as well as expressing other concerns. This is an unreasonable accusation to make, since, after all, it was those things, and many more, that led her to believe that something new is necessary, and that the new atheism movement seems to have lost its way in a lot of egregiously and overtly misogynistic posts, comments, and conference organisations.
The point I think — and this is why I raised the Jugendweihe — is that the new atheism seems to be in danger of becoming an organisation for men, a boys club, in short. Jen puts the point, uncompromisingly, like this:
I was exactly what a Boy’s Club wanted. I was a young, not-hideous woman who passionately supported their cause. I made them look diverse without them having to address their minority-repelling privilege. They liked that I joked about sex and boobs not because it was empowering for me, but because they saw it as a pass to oggle and objectify. But the Boy’s Club rescinds its invitation once they realize you’re a rabble-rousing feminist. I was welcome at TAM when I was talking about a boob joke, but now I’m persona non grata for caring about sexual harassment. I used to receive numerous comments about how hot and attractive I was, but when I politely asked for people to keep the discussion professional, the comments morphed into how I was an ugly cunt. I was once considered an up-and-coming student leader, but now I’m accused of destroying the movement.
It is not clear, both from reactions to her proposal, as well as discussions which I have followed over at Butterflies and Wheels, that the problem is appreciated. Indeed, there is some sign that some (mainly male) leaders of the movement wish the problem would just go away.
Others have suggested that McCreight should simply have used the term ‘humanism’ for the kind of socially and politically active atheism that she desiderates. But she responds that humanists are not all sceptics, nor are they necessarily progressive, for some humanists are in the habit of interpreting feminism, for example, as a roundabout way of speaking about women hating men. Another reason that she opposes humanism is because humanists copy religious institutions by providing chaplains.
That’s totally cool [she says of the latter development] if that’s what you want, but I personally don’t feel like it applies to me.
This brings me back, obviously, to my beginning, and to the kinds of social celebrations and public recognitions that can provide nonbelievers with a sense of belonging, as well as a community or communities with which to identify and carry out political and cultural activities.
Not having belonged to a humanist association, I can make no knowledgeable comment about the nature of humanism or the tendencies of humanists. Of course, there is no obvious reason that a chaplaincy scheme for nonbelievers should be avoided. After all, nonbelievers also face crises in personal life, and may need the kind of casual counselling which such a chaplaincy could provide (and that religious chaplains would only be too happy to continue doing). This is no doubt especially so for students in the upper classes (or forms) of secondary schools, as well as students in universities. Nor is there any reason why humanists should not provide a similar service to people who are in hospital. Some humanist groups provide officiants at weddings and funerals, so there is no practical reason not to widen and even in some cases to professionalise such functions, although that, of course, would require organisational structures and paid officials. I see no reason, however, to condemn such programmes, though chaplaincy can perhaps be carried too far in seeing humanist chaplaincies as but another form of “religious” chaplaincy. Since philosophical counselling is now quite well established, there is no reason why humanists could not adopt this as its preferred mode of counselling. This would at least make clear the differences of focus, and the difference of purpose of humanist chaplaincy, differences which were deliberately fudged by Greg Epstein at Harvard. Still, the growth of atheist associations on campuses will bring about a need for some kind of care of those who do not identify with religious belief.
It is interesting, and not unimportant, that the most godless place on earth should feel the need for celebrations to mark important life transitions, and organisations which provide for the fulfilment of this need. Is there any reason why nonbelievers should not gather together, not only in “atheists in the pub” occasional organisations, but in organisations which provide for the needs of families? And, while I am not making any practical proposals here, it seems very likely that only this kind of organisation can ensure that nonbelievers are represented effectively in public discussion, and in bringing about the kinds of society of which there seems to be a dearth. The “folk atheism” of which Peter Thompson speaks is perhaps the kind of atheism towards which we should be moving.
Paul Kerby should probably be Paula Kirby. And regarding A+, well, I still do not know what to make of it. The divisiveness preached by A+ just makes me wince – for now.
“Belonging to something that is greater than ourselves” sounds too much like that obsequious pseudo-atheist A. de Botton. I’m just a ‘few’ particles in this universe (and fortunately part of a great family as well), that’s enough for me. Although a pat on the back (colleagues, business clients, sport team members) once in a while is very much appreciated.
DutchA, Thanks for the correction of my spelling of Paula Kirby. As to something greater than ourselves, I don’t know why you should assimilate it to de Botton. When I was a recruit in the navy in basic training the sense of belonging to something greater than myself was quite exhilarating. As to the diivisiveness of A+, if what Jen McCreight says about her reasons for closing down her blog for now is even close to the truth of the response that she received from her proposal, the divisions were already there. Anyway, I’m not suggesting Atheism +, I beginning to think that what we need is a closer identification with humanism and humanists.
It occurs to me that a simple model of a secular charity aimed at the areas you talk about might meet the need. In England we have an charity – Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB) – which offers free advice for a range of problems everyday folk suffer from, like marital/divorce issues, monetary problems, work-place disciplinary problems and so on. Their focus is to guide people to services and facilities to which they are normally entitled but who, because of ignorance, red-tape or legal issues, often find they need expert guidance.
It would be a small step for someone to set up a charity, I think, that could supplement the CAB and extend itself into ‘chaplaincy’, moral guidance and other areas where the churches work so vigorously, by providing paid counselors. Of course, it would need to be set up by someone of some financial worth to get it going, perhaps as a Trust or something. Others will know what it takes.
DutchA: A+ is intentionally divisive. It’s dividing rape-joke-telling, ass-grabbing, boob-leering asshats from the rest of the atheist/skeptical community.
I, for one, applaud the attempt. It’s a good thing to cull the idiots from the rest of us.
Get it? Divisive is not necessarily a bad thing — when the thing that’s being separated out is the bad stuff. Kinda like popping a pimple.
@Kevin
-I do not think it is a good idea to “cull the idiots from the rest of us”. “Idiots” can make great contributions to the atheist movement, as some YECs, for instance, can make great contributions to archaeology, and some accomodationists, for instance, can make great contributions in biology. “[R]ape-joke-telling, ass-grabbing, boob-leering asshats” can be excellent popularizers of atheism.
For anyone interested, I’ve traced the birth of humanism in the work of Pico della Mirandola in his Oration on the Dignity of Man . You can find it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oration_on_the_Dignity_of_Man
I don’t believe humanism is the ‘answer’ but it might lead you to the answer. It is filled with religious symbolism.
Pithom. That may be correct, but they are not nice, and whether or not they are popularisers, what are they popularising, and with what effect, if they are, indeed, “rape-joke-telling, ass-grabbing, boob-leering asshats”? I think atheism, or any other social movement, can do without them, nor does it help to have the image of atheism tainted by people with this kind of reputation. I suspect that most archaeologists do not welcome young earth creationists as colleagues. I could be wrong, of course, but it is hard to think of someone believing that the earth is 6000 years old digging up something like Gobekli Tepe (which predates Stonehenge by 6000 years) without some conflict with his colleagues.
Egbert, there is a religious humanism, like the Christian humanism of the Renaissance, of which Erasmus (and before him, Mirandola) is an example, but there is also a secular humanism. I am not aware of the latter having much to do with religious symoblism. A really good introduction to humanism is the one by Peter Cave in the One World Beginner’s Guides series with the predictable title: Humanism: A Beginner’s Guide. He has two chapters in the book with the following titles: “Without God” and “Without Religion”. Another book on humanism, well worth reading is, Richard Norman’s On Humanism, published by Routledge. Two of his chapter titles are “Why Science Undermines Religion,” and “Morality in a Godless World.” Mirandola, of course, does not speak from an atheist or agnostic standpoint — something not easy or safe to do in the fifteenth century. But of course humanism can be traced back much futher than Mirandola, for there was a Classical humanist tradition, and the Stoics and Epicureans and members of other schools of ancient philosophy certainly stand in the humanist tradition. And don’t forget Protagoras, who made man the measure of all things.
It was Paul Kurtz who formed secular humanism, he also founded the skeptical inquirer. However, religious humanism was also founded again earlier in the 1930s, by Charles Potter and John Dewey. But, those humanisms are not the same as renaissance humanism.
It should be remembered, that communists were atheists, but communism had to be organized more or less secretly in the states.
Pingback: The most godless place on earth. Some reflections on the future of nonbelief « Choice in Dying « Secularity
My godless parents joined the local Unitarian Universalist fellowship specifically because they thought it worthwhile to have a community with which to share life’s transitions. (This fellowship, which has long since acquired a building and a full-time minister, is still predominantly atheist, which is apparently not generally the case among UU’s.)
Unfortunately, the transition most commonly celebrated is death; I’ve been to many memorial services, but the only Unitarian wedding I’ve attended was that of a niece who was raised Lutheran.
Services invariably involve a certain amount of singing and hand-holding, and this puts some people off, but a communal sharing of emotion may be one of the most important benefits a group can offer.
The reason that atheism has been for so long supported mainly by the socially insensitive — which mainly means white males past the age of sexual attractiveness — is because they have always had the least to lose from making themselves unpopular. Now, with the growth of atheism into a popular movement, more socially aware people are starting to jump aboard because they know it won’t permanently endanger their reputations.
I think that’s inevitable if atheism is going to grow. But I think it’s a little unfair of them to turn on and abuse all the awkward men who put in the long hours of work planning and campaigning at a time when virtually no women, young people or minority group members could be induced to consider joining the movement.
Maryam Namazie’s latest post gets closer to the truth once again, that this is about politics and not religion: http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2012/09/23/this-is-about-politics-not-religion/
All these alternatives to religion are futile, if we don’t understand what religion really is in the first place: political control.
@Kevin: sure, I understand that. What happened to J. McCreight, R. Watson and others was and still is an utter disgrace. And I’d sooner have those idiots stop calling themselves atheists or humanists, they are not something I want to be associated with.
However, on the great Pharyngula and other FtB-sites I read numerous ad hominem attacks on R. Dawkins. Those attacks were divisive, vitriolic and – as far as I can see/judge with perhaps insufficient info, knowledge and too much bias (?) – unjustified. Sorry if I sound like a fanboy, but his works had a far greater impact on me than those blogs. ‘Twice as loud’ does not work for me, twice as determined I sincerely applaud. So I’ll wait some more time to form an opinion. Peace.
corio, atheism has been usurped by the bourgeois class, and turned into a commercialized and ridiculous popular movement so as to make money. It really is a cruel joke, but hilarious once you get it. I won’t be fooled into yet another religion, and so I’m out.
Egbert, the interesting thing here is that Peter Thompson wonders whether the future of Europe is “folk atheism” — quite a different thing from something usurped by the bourgeois class. I’m not quite sure that atheism is a “popular movement” as you put it. It doesn’t have enough cohesion for that. And, as for it being another religioin, it seems a bit odd to speak of those who do not adhere to any otherworldly beliefs as having a religious point of view. Humanists do not consitute a religion, nor, it seems to me, can this properly be said about atheists, who have even less cohesion as a movement.
DutchA, could you link to some of these ad hominem attacks on Dawkins. I know of a few who think that Dawkins does not take seriously enough the position that women often find themselves in in secular gatherings, but of course this is not ad hominem, unless it is used delliberately as a misdirection when criticising his point of view, or an argument that he has made.
Atheism means (in its modern sense) lack of belief in gods, not lack of belief in religion. New Atheism might be a misguided attack on some generality called religion, unwilling to realize that atheists (or secular democratic governments) are just as prone to insanity and immorality as theists, and that has lead to the great divisions and hatreds that now persist between atheists.
New Atheism was a reaction out of fear and anger over 9/11, believing that Islam is the new big bad (it used to be Communism) and while I got myself swept up in that zeitgeist, I now realize just how much of a fool and foolish I was to go along with it.
Atheism+ is even more foolish, turning its misguided hatred towards men, and then pretending to care about things like social justice. Nothing good can come from hate, only more hate.
Are all religions forms of political control or all forms of political control religions? I can certainly see how religion could be used for political control, but does that make all forms of political control religions? How exactly are the atheists currently involved in political control – secular governments are certainly not atheistic – the US constitution allows for the free exercise of religion. How exactly does A+ encourage hatred of men? Aren’t you engaging in blaming the victims here – shouldn’t women have a right to not be harassed – to be treated as equals?
Perhaps I should first make it clear that those – in my eyes – attacks were not by the blogowners but the commenters. It’s a difference, but I presume those commenters -unless they were trolling – consider themselves members of A+.
The best example is http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/09/07/no-compromises/ . Just to point to a few comments: 1, 7, 8, 12, 20, 33, 34. Sordid stuff.
I am aware of 3 reactions of R. Dawkins regarding Elevatorgate. That seems to be the source of it all. As the meme says: that escalated quickly.
Michael, you can research this yourself, I’m only the messenger.
Research what? You are making all kinds of blanket assertions without a single fact to back up any of them. Redefining religion as political control doesn’t mean that religion is not a problem – it is just the same thing with a different name.
Pingback: The Most Godless Place on Earth « The Age of Blasphemy