Does Atheism Support Justice Issues?

First of all: I am NOT trying to suggest that Atheism Plus is a bad idea. I have no problems with a group of atheists who also happen to be concerned with various justice issues coming together and forming a group. Indeed, I initially thought Atheism Plus a great idea... and for the first time I looked into some participation. Thanks to the first forum, much of that enthusiasm has transformed into disappointment, hurt feelings, and now skepticism of the entire notion. Even so, I initially liked the notion and am not trying to suggest that it is a bad notion.

With that disclaimer out of the way...

I would like to actually discuss whether or not atheism supports justice issues.

I have my doubts. Is/Ought fallacy and such. Yet, even if lack of belief in any god does not support justice issues, it can certainly inform them. For instance, most arguments against gay marriage seem to be based upon theistic religious teachings. As an atheist, I do not believe in gods or the authority of the words attributed to them. As such, most of the arguments against gay marriage are just nonsense to me.

What do you think? Can you draw a direct line from your lack of belief in any gods to a conclusion that one ought to work for this or that justice issue? Do you think such a thing impossible? I'd love to hear some views.

Good question, Dar -

Before I answer, I'd like to express my bafflement that this question didn't appear to be addressed at all within the community in open discussion, then out of the blue it became this with-us-or-against-us fault line. I admit that I don't keep as close an eye on the blogs as i could, but i reckon i could count at least 10 mentions of pascal's wager to each one of social justice in stuff I have read. I do think there's an element of the proponents of this idea executing a sort of 'end run' around skepticism, whereby they've just declared the answer to be 'yes' without giving the reasons, then appealing to emotion, authority or ridicule to cajole the rest of us on board. I also think the conflation of the question you asked, Dar, with all the stuff about sexual harrassment at conferences was a smoke-screen for this.

It's a very interesting question, though, and worth chewing over independently of the identity politics.

First of all, I'd have to say that strictly the answer must by 'no' because of the well-known definition of the word 'atheism' and also that 'social justice' is too vague a term anyway.

However, just as an observation, it's likely that people who come out of religion, or question religion, very often do so because they don't see that it addresses 'well-being' type of concerns very well, and hence are likely to drift to the left politically. This is a very general rule of course. Another aspect is that such people may also come to see cultishness in some of the right-wing preoccupations, anti-gayism and sexism being good examples of this, and therefore opposition to the above may well come from the same place as their atheism.

Here's my crack at it so far: Atheism does imply 'secular morality' (discounting nihilists). If we could agree on what sort of secular morality we want then we can go from there to see how far it goes towards social justice. Off the top of my head I'm familiar with the following flavours of secular morality (I'm not claiming it's an exhaustive list); Relativism, Pragmatism, Ethical Realism.

On a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being deeply in favour of social justice (defined generally), 1 totally against and 4 neutral, I'd score Relativism at a 4, Pragmatism at a 5 (but this is a complete guess) and Ethical Realism at a 5 and a half.

So the tentative conclusion is that secular morality is generally mildly favourable to social justice. Ethical realism, with its focus on well-being is the most interesting case, and there are certainly those who would argue that equal distribution of resources would maximise well-being. However, of course, well-being is defined broadly and we'd have to factor in issues such as high tax-rates and a sense of being under a powerful government can reduce the feeling of well-being so it's not cut and dried.

This discussion is a bit limited because of the vague meaning of 'social justice'. If we cut to the chase and suggest that, for example, you have to accept 'patriarchy theory' to remain 'rational' if you're an atheist then we get a sharper and more interesting discussion. I'm open to the idea that up until now, I've been living my life brainwashed and conditioned to accept these gender roles and will now unreasonably defend them like the mind virus they are. In order to substantiate that this is actually true, though, I think I'd have to be shown that this 'gender role' theory actually 'shows up' when i analyse my life against some deeper paradigm which I definitely hold to be true, so that by recognising and eliminating the 'gender roles' I am clearly improving my life or my ideas against this deeper underlying standard. Sadly, at the moment I've got no idea what form this deeper paradigm may take. Maybe there are books explaining it, and I've just not read the right one yet, or maybe it's not the sort of thing you can find in a book. Either way, at the moment, I simply have nothing to compare 'life with gender roles' to, so I have to regard the proposition (that I'm brainwashed by patriarchy) as unproven at the moment.

You might come back at me and say 'but a born Scientologist will defend Hubbard's nonsense because he's got nothing to compare it to either.' And I'd have to say you'd be right until someone grabs him and shows him life outside. I don't think there is any life outside the patriarchy (according to the patriarchy proponents), so as a practical matter, they've got nothing to show me.

Anyway, this is all just thinking aloud at this stage, so anybody feel free to correct me where I've gone wrong.

I'd say atheism doesn't support anything per se, other than a disbelief in gods. Skepticism, the path that leads many people to be Atheists, is consistent with a certain amount of social justice issues, but there is no guarantee that someone who is rational and skeptical regarding the existence of deities thinks the same way regarding other things, or anything really. Most people have their own little irrationalities and biases, but if they don't believe in gods, we call them atheists, even if they do believe in, say, the inferiority of black people or the superiority of women.

One of my major concerns with A+ is its rather draconian and frankly, irrational position on gender issues.

I think the question is framed poorly.

Atheism is a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism implies nothing more.

The question I have is

Why shouldn't Atheists get together in support of Social Justice issues?

scott1328 wrote:I think the question is framed poorly.

Atheism is a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism implies nothing more.

The question I have is

Why shouldn't Atheists get together in support of Social Justice issues?

As of yet I haven't heard what those social justice goals are.
Without clear goals, what are we supporting?

A goal without a plan is just a dream!

scott1328 wrote:I think the question is framed poorly.

Atheism is a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism implies nothing more.

The question I have is

Why shouldn't Atheists get together in support of Social Justice issues?

It's fine for atheists who happen to support some cause to get together and do something to promote their cause. What's wrong is when those atheists tell other atheists that they're inferior for not joining their group/disagreeing.

I have major issues with A+'s brand of radical feminism, which IMO flies in the face of history and present day reality, and I have problems with the way these people act like it's completely unreasonable to disagree with them on that.

AliRadicali wrote:

scott1328 wrote:I think the question is framed poorly.

Atheism is a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism implies nothing more.

The question I have is

Why shouldn't Atheists get together in support of Social Justice issues?

It's fine for atheists who happen to support some cause to get together and do something to promote their cause. What's wrong is when those atheists tell other atheists that they're inferior for not joining their group/disagreeing.

I have major issues with A+'s brand of radical feminism, which IMO flies in the face of history and present day reality, and I have problems with the way these people act like it's completely unreasonable to disagree with them on that.

Well, in fact I do believe the folks in the other forum "are doing it wrong" and their own policies are self-defeating. Nevertheless, I do hold the same values they claim to hold.

AliRadicali wrote:I have major issues with A+'s brand of radical feminism, which IMO flies in the face of history and present day reality, and I have problems with the way these people act like it's completely unreasonable to disagree with them on that.

What do you consider "radical feminism", and what might you consider "nonradical feminism"?

Non-radical feminism is about seeking gender equality.

Radical feminism seeks retributions for females from males and or female superiority over males.

Dar wrote:Non-radical feminism is about seeking gender equality.

Radical feminism seeks retributions for females from males and or female superiority over males.

But is terms of core beliefs and actions what is the difference?

You can't see a fundamental difference between those two positions, as described?


I'm not a fan of feminism, radical or not, as I find it fundamentally divisive, the label feminism itself a key indicator of the inherent, underlying sexism of the cause. Sure women are entitled to equality, but that's a human issue, not just a female one .. on several levels. It's a human issue, insofar as no person who identifies as, or is identified as part of a particular group should be discriminated against on those grounds. It's a human issue, insofar as how people treat each other has an effect on society as a whole. It's a human issue insofar as men are also entitled to equality, and in dealing with the equality issues of one group, the issues of the other must also be recognised and addressed, by definition. Equality.

We're all human beings who share lives on a planet, and we're capable of considering ourselves and others with respect and concern, regardless of gender .. or any other perceived difference for that matter. Our biological and socially imposed roles, have evolved, and continue to evolve. We're smart enough.

lpetrich wrote:

AliRadicali wrote:I have major issues with A+'s brand of radical feminism, which IMO flies in the face of history and present day reality, and I have problems with the way these people act like it's completely unreasonable to disagree with them on that.

What do you consider "radical feminism", and what might you consider "nonradical feminism"?

Honestly, I think any kind of feminism is inherently radical in various ways. I think most people who self-identify as feminists mean they support women on certain equality issues, I doubt the majority of them finds patriarchy theory to be particularly convincing, despite being a key tenet in feminism. A better word to describe these people would be egalitarians.

elouise wrote:You can't see a fundamental difference between those two positions, as described?

(I think this was directed at my response Dar, if not disregard)

I've read heaps of radical and "non radical" feminist literature and I understand the expressed differences following dictionary type definitions.

I'm asking Dar (or anyone who wishes to answer really) how the core beliefs (in regards to women's positions in society, female oppression, patriarchy etc) differ between radical and "non radical" feminists. If there are no core belief differences then the only true distinction is the lengths to which radical and non radicals take their conclusions. So, essentially, the difference between a friendly non you're burning in hell type christian and the Westboro Baptist Church christians. Going along with this example, while I agree it is unfair to directly equate them, the two churches do lend each other credibility in some fashion.