Richard Carrier on the social outcasting of atheists and secular humanists. A critical examination of the social condition of atheists and why they're largely responsible for it. The "victimization complex" and the forever alone atheist

 

In his book Sense and Goodness without God, atheist Richard Carrier complains of the social outcasting suffered by most atheists:

as atheists know better than anyone else on the planet, if you say you don’t believe you often become a social outcast (p. 269)

Carrier's statement is factually correct (and autobiographical). Now the pressing question is: what reasons do exist for the massive social outcasting of atheists?

Atheists in general, lacking self-critical insights, tend to blame religious bigotry as the only or main cause of such situation. But is this the actual reason behind the social outcasting of atheists? Or is there something in the atheist's OWN behaviour which explains why society in general regards them so negatively?

In a scientific survey published a few years ago, atheists were considered the most distrusted minority in the United States.The authors of the study remarked that "Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong... Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good".

Is such negative perception of atheists by the American society explained by the atheist's own actions and beliefs? My contention is that, with some qualifications, the answer is YES. (Keep in mind that it is a purely diagnostic or descriptive explanation of the social outcasting of atheists; it is not a moral evaluation of whether such outcasting is good or bad).

Demostrable facts in the atheist's own behaviour, actions and deeds which promotes the social outcasting of atheists in general:

I'm going to provide several reasons for the conclusion that, as a rule (perhaps there are a few exceptions) the behavioor of atheists actually promotes and causes their social outcasting.

1-Extreme arrogance and delusional, self-congratulatory and megalomanic perception of themselves: Atheists, in general, seem to have an almost delusional, unjustifiably high concept of themselves. This high view of themselves is, in many cases, purely imaginary, because no objective evidence support such view. Many of them are intellectually mediocre individuals. Their self-perception as almost "mini-gods" is sheer delusion.

For example, in the atheistic website www.the-brights.net, you can read this ridiculous definition of "bright": "

What is a bright?

* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

Note that a bright is, by definition, someone who accept the naturalistic ideology. If it's true, then most of the people on Earth (who believe in God or some supernatural or mystical realm) are not brights. Therefore, actual brights belong to a very select group of superior people, hence to an self-created ELITE.

Expanding on the silly self-centered and self-gratifying definitions given above, that ridiculous, arrogant and delusional website continues: "Think about your own worldview to decide if it is free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. If you decide that you fit the description above, then you are, by definition, a bright!

On this website, you can simply say so and, by doing so, join with other brights from all over the world in an extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society—the Brights movement"

Is not such self-congratulatory and delusional definition of "bright", which implies that most people are not bright, a sufficient reason for most people feeling offended by the atheist's self-centered, "I'm smarther than you" kind of mentality? Is not such atheistic behaviour a sufficient reason for their social outcasting?

A few years ago, one of the leading New Atheists, philosopher Daniel Dennett, seriously and formally suggested the label of "brights" for atheists. The implication is that non-atheists (i.e. over the 95% of the world) are not "brights", simply because they believe in God.

Obviously, such self-congratulatory and delusional self-perception of superiority backfires, because most people will consider such thing to be insulting and offensive, and will castigate atheists for their arrogance and delusions of superiority. Hence, making atheists social outcasts will follow almost necessarily, but atheist "geniuses" and "brights" cannot anticipate it.

As philosopher Edward Feser comments:

Several years ago, Dennett famously suggested in a The New York Times piece that secularists adopt the label "brights" to distinguish them from the religious believers. His proposal doesn't seem to have caught on (perhaps because a grown man who goes around earnestly chirping "I'm a bright" surely sounds rather like an idiot. But whatever the rhetorical deficiencies of "bright", it perfectly encapsulates the self-satisfaction of the secularist mentality: "We're intelligent, informed, and rational, while religious believers are stupid, ignorant, and irrational, not at all bright like us (The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, p. 3)

Are you surprised that atheists become social outcasts? What rational, sane person would want to be friends with such arrogant, self-congratulatory, megalomanic, "I'm smarter than you", delusional group of people like atheists? The natural reaction and strategy to deal with them is precisely ignoring them and excluding them from most social groups.

2-The prima facie implausibility of atheism as a worldview: As David Hume himself argued:

The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquierer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion... Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system . . .All the things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughtout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author (The Natural History of Religion, pp 21, 26. For discussion of Hume's argument, see this post and this one)

People in general, faced with the order of nature, will tend to conclude that some kind of supernatural intelligence is operating behind the world. Prima facie, the plausibility lies on the side of theism, not of atheism. (In Hume's case, he added that after "serious reflection", theism is still superior than atheism).

Not suprinsingly, as one of the fathers of modern philosophy, empiricist Francis Bacon famously said "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity... So man, when he resteth and assureth himself, upon divine protection and favor, gathered a force and faith, which human nature in itself could not obtain. Therefore, as atheism is in all respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth human nature of the means to exalt itself, above human frailty"

On the other hand, atheists pretend to convince us that, from pure brute, mechanical, non-teleological insentient matter, and even from absolutely "nothing", a bunch of things came into being, including:

-The whole universe

-Consciousness

-Rationality

The above summary of atheism seems to be too crude or superficial. But note what one of the leading and most sophisticated atheistic thinkers, philosopher Quentin Smith, says about the reasons for the universe's coming into being:

The fact of the matter is that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing... We should instead acknowledge our foundation in nothingness and feel awe at the marvellous fact that we have a chance to participate briefly in this incredible sunburst that interrupts without reason the reign of non-being ." (Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Comsology. P.135. emphasis in blue added)

Makes perfect sense, right?

3-The impossibility of having solid grounds for objective moral values, moral responsability and moral accountability in atheism: I've provided sufficient irrefutable evidence for this conclusion in these posts, so I won't repeat the arguments here.


4-The lack of respect for reason, logic, science and rational argumentation, despite of claiming themselves to be the champions of science and reason: Despite of atheists' claim to the contrary, for them, "science" and "reason" are only tools to justify their emotional rejection of the idea of God, an idea that they cannot accept regardless of the evidence.

They are prepared to abuse science in order to support atheism, for example, claiming that virtual particles, which come from the quantum vacuum, come from "nothing" (conflating the quantum vacuum with nothing, which is scientifically false).

Moreover, they're prepared, if forced by the circunstances, to deny logic or even necessary mathematical truths (like 2+2=4) in order to deny theism:

Or to deny the existence of historical figures like Jesus (a denialism widely rejected even by secular historians and scholars), just because they have an axe to grind against Christianity, and want to destroy it at any cost. (Carrier is an egregious examples of this. Also, Robert Price).

5-Engaging in childish, immature behaviours and fantasies which are unworthy of serious, fully grown and sane adults: For example, you can see the "Members for the Center  for Inquiry" ridiculing the figure of Jesus, making cartoons depicting a femenine Jesus painting his "nails".

What kind of "rational" people is going to do that, and at the same time pretending that society in general (which is composed mostly of religious believers) will be indifferent to such offense to religious beliefs shared by most members of society? Are not atheists themselves promoting their own social outcasting from the largest and main groups of society?

It is astonishing to discover that supposedly "rational" and "scientific" individuals may be so blind, socially inept and intellectually so stupid, not understanding that their own actions backfire and fully confirm the nagative view that most people on Earth have about atheists. More evidence of mediocrity, bigotry and incompetence.

CONCLUSION

The atheist's common complain that the social outcasting suffered by atheists is caused mainly by religious bigotry is misleading and, on inspection, argueably false. The atheist's own weird behaviour, implausible beliefs, attitudes, etc. (like discussed in this post) suffices to explain why most people tend to see atheists as extremely weird individuals.

This does not exclude the possibility that religious factors play a role in the rejection of atheists. But such factor pales in comparison with the atheist's typical personal traits and implausible beliefs which are repugnant in the eyes of most people on Earth, and fully explain why atheists are a very distrusted minority.

As many atheists are more interested in criticizing others, instead of self-criticism and self-inspection, they simply cannot see how their own actions are destructive to the atheist agenda.

Another consequence of this blindness is a tendency for feeling victimized, a kind of "victimization complex", according to which atheists feel themselves innocent victims of non-atheists, specially of Christians.

Such view is clearly delusional, and tends to reinforce the atheist's social resentment and outcasting.