Atheism abandoned

In recent years, the ideological battle between the religious community and the atheist community has captured national attention. Such sacrilegious and blasphemous characters as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have vehemently written of the evils of religion.

But has the current escalation in discourse strengthened the cause of the secular community? Are we atheists winning the culture war?

I think not.

Our rhetoric is shock and awe. Our arguments unearth ancient animosities and further alienate our opponents. We approach religion as a macro-issue, believing that we are capable of conquering the entire structure in one fell swoop.

Indeed, the atheists have the correct intentions. I agree with their view of religion as perhaps the most distressing perversion of human intelligence in history, whose edicts and influences have stagnated the progress of civil society.

But somehow the secular community does not consider the efficacy of their own approach.

It is time for us secularists to go underground. We can no longer use the confrontational rhetoric we so intuitively feel is necessary.

We must abandon our titles. No longer are we atheists, anti-theists, secularists or free thinkers. In order to win the culture war we must recognize that an argument against the merits of religion as a worldview is tragically unassailable.  

We cannot hope to gain conceptual territory by assaulting the religious for their religion.

Instead we must act as the champions of reason, science and empirical reality. We must exploit every opportunity to promote common sense. The secular community must confront each religious claim and discuss its merits. Secularists often fail to recognize the multitude of opportunities to do so. 

Despite their common denial, the religious community does employ empiricism and scientific claims. It just so happens that these arguments are bad science. 

For example, take the debate about Proposition 8 in California. Proponents of this disastrous legislation argue that same-sex marriage would compromise the nuclear family. They say children would not be raised in an environment conducive to their development, and the sanctity of heterosexual marriage would be compromised.

Although these arguments propagated by the religious community derive from issues of faith, at their base the claims appeal to scientific reasoning. That makes them testable.

The opposition to Proposition 8 argues that the government should not legislate morality and that religious laws should not be integrated into the state. The opposition makes the legislation a discussion about secularism versus religion. They make the discussion abstract, elusive and, once again, unwinnable.

Instead, secularists must confront the empirical claims of the religious proponents of Proposition 8. By willfully denying the role of religion, the opponents are capable of pointing out that the empirical claims of the religious are false. 

Surely it is not proven that same-sex marriage compromises heterosexual marriage. Is there truly evidence of developmental issues among children raised in a household with gay couples? I think not.

Secularists can no longer reinforce the most prominent defense of the religious community: “It is just my belief.” The moment a belief affects another member of a community, the discussion becomes one of facts, figures and empirical reality.

Secularists must engage in these discussions.

Such micro-level arguments begin to break down the fortress of religion.