The uncomfortable conclusion of this is that the progress of atheism during the last centuries is not stable and is only due to the increased propagation of information apart from the established mores. Fluctuations in independant thought depend mainly on the prevalent epistemic viewpoint of a society, but no real advance in atheism is possible unless the gene pool is culled. This is improbable for the simple reason that atheists do not have sufficient time to establish themselves as a strong social force before we have the possibility of manipulating the gene pool. Therefore this avenue is definitively closed for us.
To be furthered, atheism must be inserted in its proper place, that is as an ontological point of view. What many ideologies do is use atheism in order to free spiritual mindspace, as it is, for their own purpose-giving beliefs (for example, collectivist or socialist political systems, or cultist indoctrination). It is necessary to integrate one's atheism with a view of the big picture - that is, starting from appropriate metaphysical and epistemic premises. More concretely, a system of thought must also have a sense of community, rituals, direct people's energies towards their own meaning, and bring a reassurance or assurance. Only then can it hope to replace more comforting belief systems, whose memetic components have evolved to play with our spiritual instincts.
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Francois Tremblay's Atheism topic, please visit the Discussions page.