Athée Canadien
Atheism and Politics: an Atheist Ideology?
By Brent
Can atheism be political? Should atheism be political? Are there any benefits to atheism entering the political sphere, as it has in the United States, Australia, and soon, Canada?
The answer to the first question is clearly yes. The existence of ‘secular’ political parties and lobby groups is evidence enough that atheists are mobilizing in the political sphere and bringing their atheistic ideals with them into the fray. Atheism can be (and is) political. This paper, on a contemporary political theory website shows that “New Atheism” (or “aggressive atheism’, as the author call it) has already entered the radar screens of at least some modern political theorists.
The answer to the second question, however, is not so simple.
I suppose, from one perspective, the idea of atheism can be understood as a nearly non-political concept. After all, atheism can be defined simply as the absence of belief in god or gods. Beyond theocracy and separation of church and state issues, atheism thus defined has little to say about how a country is run.
Can atheism be the foundation of a coherent and comprehensive political ideology? Well, by itself, not really. Just as belief in a god alone cannot create a comprehensive ideological system without accompanying religious texts, institutions, dogmas, etc. Atheists must therefore draw upon more than just disbelief in god if they desire to create an ideology that can meet the demands of contemporary society.
Atheists have a wealth of opportunity before them with regards to becoming political. Rejecting the theistic paradigm allows atheists to discard poorly constructed beliefs in favor of better substantiated claims, at least where deities are concerned. But how can atheists decide upon fiscal and monetary policy? What about foreign and domestic policy?
Something that I think would appeal to most, if not all atheists, is the idea of an evidence- and reason-based approach to almost everything political. This implies a healthy skepticism and a disposition towards empiricism, as well as careful philosophical consideration where necessary (i.e. ethical problems). An aspiring atheist politician could draw upon the best evidence and knowledge available from the fields of science and social science to inform their policies. Moral problems could be tackled using the best philosophy available.
For example, in response to the economic assertion: “We need to cut government spending because otherwise inflation will result” an atheist politician could respond: “alright, fair enough, but what is the latest economic data on the subject? What has happened in the past in similar situations? What do the leading economic schools of thought have to say about inflation and cutting government spending?”
In response to the moral assertion: “abortion should/should not be allowed”, an atheist politician could draw upon the latest scientific evidence regarding abortion procedures and fetus/embryo biology, and consult with various ethics systems to determine the morality of abortion.
In response to the foreign policy assertion: “We need to invade Iraq because there are WMD’s there” an atheist politician could ask “What is the evidence for this assertion? Furthermore, how certain are we that, if these WMD’s exist, they pose a reasonable threat to us, given our military capacity?”.
So, in summary, atheism cannot form a coherent ideology without the aid of other concepts and ideas. The basis of an ideology with atheism (or secularism) as a central tenet could be empiricism and skepticism. Atheists could draw upon the best evidence and knowledge available from the sciences and social sciences. To answer moral questions, atheists may consult with philosophy and ethics.
The last question (are there any benefits to atheism entering the political sphere) is certainly yes, at least, for atheists. If atheists wish to have their worldviews represented in the political institutions of our time, they need to mobilize. Getting politically active is the first step towards having a say in the outcomes of your country. Being active and visible is far better than being submissive and passive. Albeit being active in the wrong ways can be damaging, and any nascent atheist political movement or politician must be tremendously careful where they tread.
If implemented correctly, I think an ideology with atheism as a central tenet could be tremendously powerful. The demon-haunted world could finally be dispelled where it has for so long held bastion: in the seats and halls of government.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Brent on August 17, 2010 at 8:30 am, and is filed under General. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 1 year ago
Great post Brent, I think this really goes along with the spirit of what I’m proposing out here. A dose of rationality and empiricism is clearly needed when politicians are making decisions based on “unreported” crimes or using hollow rhetoric.
The difficult part I foresee is selling such a movement, but with the success of the New Atheists, and a large non-voting demographic (turnout federally is below 60%, and is down to 30% in Vancouver).
about 1 year ago
I’m guilty of contributing to the horrible statistics, but I pledge to most definitely vote in all forth-coming elections D:
See, changing the world one person at a time ;) haha
about 1 year ago
Brent, I’m skeptical of the idea that skepticism and empiricism alone form a political agenda. On many issues, the leaders of both sides are skeptics and empiricists and have a nontheist philosophy. For example, you mention economics; but libertarianism, social liberalism, and communism are all secular. Even on issues where atheists clearly tilt one way, such as the Iraq War, there were plenty of atheists on the other side.
about 1 year ago
You’re absolutely right, but I’m not proposing that skepticism and empiricism alone could form an ideology or political agenda. I think skepticism and empiricism would be extremely useful in creating a coherent and cogent ideology, but more would be necessary. As I explained in my article:
“Something that I think would appeal to most, if not all atheists, is the idea of an evidence- and reason-based approach to almost everything political. This implies a healthy skepticism and a disposition towards empiricism, as well as careful philosophical consideration where necessary (i.e. ethical problems). An aspiring atheist politician could draw upon the best evidence and knowledge available from the fields of science and social science to inform their policies. Moral problems could be tackled using the best philosophy available.”
Basically, skepticism and empiricism would be core tenets, but certainly would not compromise the whole basis for the ideology.
about 1 year ago
Agreed. Universities are full of well educated, rational, non-theistic people; yet take a walk around campus and you’ll find hugely disparaging views. If no-one can agree on anything in what are (for the most part) the greatest bastions of secular and rational thought our society has to offer, I don’t think there’s much hope at all for a political party based on similar ideals.
The problem is that real world problems cannot be solved by logic alone, because logic is only a model for the real world in the first place. Real world problems are often logically undecidable problems at their core, no matter what justifications the less than rational partisans offer up in defense of their positions. They are the product of the interaction of core social values. Our values act as premesis as we live out our lives, and we make decisions based on these premesis as to the ‘right’ course of action in individual situations (think of them as logical theorums). The ones that are decidable are never the ones we hear about, however, as it’s straight forwad ‘common sense’ what the right course of action is. The big issues, like abortion, arise because these problems are essentially undecidable, based on our existing social moral premises (see Godel’s Incompleteness Theorum) (and assuming of course there is a common set of values to start from – but the fact that there isn’t only strengthens my point).
Ex. Abortion: is a direct conflict between the supreme value we place on human life… and itself (which, if you’re familiar with Godel above, is why I find this a particularly savoury example :D). We have a cultural imperative to protect, preserve, and prolong human life insofar as possible. The issue arises in a) trying to define ‘human’ (when does this life ‘begin’) and b) whether the utilitarian perspective overrides the right of the individual in such a case. Being completely rational, you can extend these values to argue cogently for either side. And neither side will ever be ‘more logically correct’. It just depends what definitions we as a culture agree to adopt at the bottom of the ‘logical pyramid’.
The issue with forming a political party is that politics is essentially a ‘top-down’ process: one that requires making decisions on big issues *without* atomizing the whole of our value system every time (because once you start, it’s a process you can’t really stop – everything rests on something else). And that task REQUIRES dogma. So, while it would be nice to hear these issues reduced to their rational core by politicians instead of the usual pony show, to found a political party based on skepticism and empiricism is almost an oxymoron.
about 1 year ago
I’ve purposefully avoided talking about the other central tenets of an atheistic ideology exactly for this reason. Inevitably, values will change over time, and what one society builds it’s value systems on will differ from century to century. Furthermore, those value systems are indeed somewhat arbitrary, because as you mention, any value system is never ‘complete’. Nevertheless, I feel that skepticism and empiricism are sorely lacking in contemporary politics; that far too much is left to ideology and unverified belief. A ‘secular’ or ‘atheistic’ ideology would do well to separate itself from its contemporaries by utilizing what I feel to be profoundly effective vehicles for getting closer to ‘the truth’.
As for what I think the gap in the ‘Atheist Ideology’ should be filled with, I have a soft spot for the concept of ‘Eudaimonia’ (or ‘flourishing’) borrowed from virtue ethics. I would be in favor of incorporating values into the ‘Atheist Ideology’ that facilitate the most human flourishing with the least amount of negative consequence. I think the ‘best’ ideology would be the one which creates the best world possible for the greatest amount of people possible. Again, I realize that ‘best’ is certainly an arbitrary term. Despite this, I think the concept of flourishing does provide a reasonably satisfactory elaboration of ‘best’, but I won’t get into that explanation.
about 1 year ago
So to solve the issue of indeterminate paradoxes produced by our current value system, you propose adding another value to the pot? Your thinking models that of the very utilitarian perspective I referred to in the above case example… and doesn’t solve any of the issues. Furthermore, ‘Eudaimonia’ is nothing but a prescriptive value in and of itself; the only ‘logical’ argument you can present to me will no doubt rest on other values which you have internalized to a point of implicit acceptance through your life (you’ve already broken down to ‘best’ which you yourself acknowledge is a highly subjective term), but what if I reject those as well? You’re playing with dogma, but perhaps even more dangerously than any religious nut, you dress it in a garb of pseudo-impartiality.
As much as I too tire of flagrantly fallacious ideologies, it is very difficult to get people to swallow an unjustified assertion if you yourself insist upon rational rigour. Ideology and politics require appeals to emotion, to authority, to all the other little buttons that let us be manipulated, because to be completely rational is to be completely neutral. Logic does not, and cannot, dictate the state of values in our system, it merely (by definition) expresses the nature of the relationship between the states (good/bad) of the nodes (values).
That said I bear no disdain if you want to delineate and spread your own personal ideology. I just think the moniker of atheism, rationality, secularity etc. to describe it is a misnomer at the least, and offends my logical sensibilities.
about 1 year ago
“Your thinking models that of the very utilitarian perspective I referred to in the above case example… and doesn’t solve any of the issues”
It is similar to utilitarianism but distinct in some important ways.
“Furthermore, ‘Eudaimonia’ is nothing but a prescriptive value in and of itself; the only ‘logical’ argument you can present to me will no doubt rest on other values which you have internalized to a point of implicit acceptance through your life (you’ve already broken down to ‘best’ which you yourself acknowledge is a highly subjective term), but what if I reject those as well?”
If you reject the idea that everyone should live long, happy, fulfilled lives, then what do you propose instead?
“You’re playing with dogma, but perhaps even more dangerously than any religious nut, you dress it in a garb of pseudo-impartiality. ”
Impartial in what respect? Reasoned, certainly, empirical, certainly. I don’t see how partiality even fits into the equation.
“because to be completely rational is to be completely neutral”
Sounds like a value judgment to me. What values underlie this belief of yours?
“I just think the moniker of atheism, rationality, secularity etc. to describe it is a misnomer at the least, and offends my logical sensibilities.”
I can’t understand why you would care, or have sensibilities in the first place. Since both atheism and theism are based on logic structures which inevitably, as you say, must have dogmatic centers at their logical bottoms, both are incomplete and therefore invalid. Why do you care about anything at all, for that matter?