Atheists and Politics

Over at Uncommon Descent, DaveScot says something stupid about atheism and science. (In other news, Dog Bites Man, Pope Still Catholic, Bear Arrested for Indecent Exposure in National Forest, and Ocean Wet and Salty.)

At the end of a passage in his new book (The God Delusion) that discusses the relative frequency of "avowed atheists" in the National Academy of Sciences (~93%) and the United States Congress (~0%), Dawkins wrote, "What is going on here? I think we all know." DaveScot responded with this:

Yeah, I think we all DO know, Richard. The National Academy membership is a self-elected body where your chances of becoming a member if you're not an avowed atheist is akin to passing a camel through the eye of a needle. The National Academy is a self-elected body out-of-touch with mainstream America. Congress, on the other hand, is neither self-elected nor (arguably) out-of-touch.

Ordinarily, I try not to respond to DaveScot's drivel. This time, though, he the issue he raises is worth some discussion - even if his take on it is absolutely inane.

We'll start with the National Academy. In scientific circles, generally speaking, nobody gives a damn about anyone else's religious beliefs. Membership in the National Academy isn't exclusively based on pure merit - the new members are elected by the current members, and as always in situations like that both politics and the occasional bit of petty vindictiveness can come into play. However, while the National Academy may not be a pure meritocracy, it comes reasonably close. Religious beliefs aren't even close to being in the picture.

Next, we'll look at Congress. Congresscritters are elected by the public. In another passage found early in the book, Dawkins cites a Gallup poll that asked people whether they would ever vote for an atheist. Only 49% said that they would. (For contrast, the next lowest-scoring groups - homosexuals and Mormons - both polled in the 70s.) If that statistic is right on the nose, or high, an atheist is totally unelectable.

That's right. In this country, a country where there are supposed to be no religious requirements to hold public office, where the right to believe or not believe as you wish is enshrined in the Constitution, you can't get elected if you say you don't believe in god. Speaking as an American, that's both scary and just plain wrong.

I honestly couldn't tell you whether I'm an atheist or not - I don't know myself. I do know, from what I've already read, that I think Dawkins has got some things wrong in his new book. I also know that even if he is wrong about everything else in the book, Dawkins has got one thing exactly right. There is a tremendous bias out there against atheists, and that bias isn't going to go away if atheism is kept in the closet. Coming out has gone a long way toward decreasing public misperceptions and increasing public acceptance for other groups. It's time for atheism to try that approach.

More like this

It would help a lot if Elmer Gantry wannabees the world over would stop bearing false witness from their pulpits, proclaiming that atheists cannot be moral and cannot have meaning in their lives.

By somnilista, FCD (not verified) on 28 Sep 2006 #permalink

The problem with 'coming out' for Athiests, is that its not like alot of us are hiding it. I truly don't see it as a question over whether gods exist, its a question about what happens to the individual when they die. So many people who want to know or want to tell you about themselves, are just out for a debate. There's nothing to debate, it's the ultimate unknowable, and deeply personal.

some of the jews and unitarian-universalists are probably atheists. also, look at people who give 'no religious affiliation.' some of them might be.

I do know, from what I've already read, that I think Dawkins has got some things wrong in his new book

Just curious what do you think he got wrong?

The problem with 'coming out' for Athiests, is that its not like alot of us are hiding it.

In certain regions of the US, a lot of people are hiding it.

By somnilista, FCD (not verified) on 28 Sep 2006 #permalink

I'm curious about the "deeply personal" bit.

People always talk about their religious or metaphysical beliefs as "deeply personal" or at least "personal."

I can understand if you want to keep some things that you think about to yourself, like bizarre sexual fantasies, but most people talk about their religious beliefs as if they were by definition personal and not something to be discussed openly. With something like weird sex fantasies, you don't want everyone knowing because of embarrassment or scorn, but is this the same reason metaphysical beliefs or opinions are treated the same way sometimes?

The funniest part is where DS claims congress is (arguably) not out of touch. Yeah, right....

By Roadtripper (not verified) on 28 Sep 2006 #permalink

Behold the miracle of majority elections! Monorities scorned by significant fractions of the population will get *no* representation. With a proportional system a party including atheists could fight for the votes of the 49% who aren't bigoted in that way and still get some representation.
(which obviously is a bad thing if you believe that the best parliament consist of a large number of people who are essentially carbon copies of each other)

By Thomas Palm (not verified) on 29 Sep 2006 #permalink

There's something very wrong with the term "avowed atheist"...

By Kim Boone (not verified) on 29 Sep 2006 #permalink

I think that the most telling part of that statement is that apparently, DaveScot thinks that the NAS SHOULD be in touch with the American People, rather than in touch with science. Apparently, DaveScott thinks that science should be a matter of popular opinion rather than objective fact.

Those damned fools at NAS. We should be out polling the trailer park denizens and gang-bangers to get a fair and balanced representation of what the common man thinks is science.

The question is as some wit said ... is not what you beleave that counts but How you beleave it. Give science a chance and see if you base your beliefs on feelings or rationality.Research the subject and see what proofs there are for your beliefs.