I'm saying this as an agnostic who grew up in the UMC:
All attempts to do this, particularly in the internet age, have failed spectacularly. They just turn into the worst parts of organized religion without the higher power. Remember the Reddit atheist movement of 10-15 years ago? A not-insignificant portion of that population went on to become the alt-right.
Remember the Reddit atheist movement of 10-15 years ago? A not-insignificant portion of that population went on to become the alt-right.
You're making an observation about the USA type of atheist here, and I'll leave that to you because I understand that in the USA atheists are an unusual thing. But I just want to point out that in the UK and many parts of Europe, being atheist is just very normal. Its so normal that there's not really a label or a scene, and there's also a lot of just agnostic/dont-really-ever-think-about-it type people that would probably be classed as atheist in the USA, but in the UK they're just <unlabelled> because no-one cares whether they believe in deities of some kind or not. And many people might say they are christian when asked (46%), but dont ever pray, or go to church. A lot of UK people have christian weddings and funerals, but thats about the sum total of their involvement. Only 8% of the UK are getting baptised, only about 5% go to church regularly.
For example I see that in the USA its very important for politicians to talk about their faith, and if a politician is atheist it gets talked about as a 'thing'. In the UK its the exact opposite, the last thing we expect politicians to talk about is their faith in god, and if they do talk about it we get kindof weirded out (ref: Tony Blair in the late 90s).
I just want to point that out, because I know the UK exported Dawkins and that might give people the wrong impression. Most of the UK are quiet-atheist or quiet-agnostic. And they are quiet because its no big deal, there's no political or moral stakes, no-one gets judged for being non-religious over here. (Even in politics, where you might expect political opponents to nit-pick everything about each other, no politician here would ever call out an opponent for being atheist, because it would just be a nonsensical thing to call out, and they would be laughed at for even trying to call it out)
Oh yeah, when you look up "wallflower" in an English language dictionary, it's got a British atheist next to it, and Dawkins is definitely an exception to the rule.
Offer not valid for Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Adams, Ricky Gervais, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Bertrand Russell, and Salman Rushdie
Those communities still need some sort of faith to keep going. It doesn't have to be faith in supernatural gods; it could be in the destiny of mankind to surf the universe, or in the revolution of the proletariat, but it will still be a type of faith.
Why? That may sound vaguely profound somehow but it’s just not true. Communities don’t have to be secular churches. A cycling club or a board games meetup or a book club don’t have “faith”, just a shared focus and people who are willing to show up every week.
Something like a cycling or book club isn't going to have the deep connection, commitment to unconditional love, etc. that a healthy church has.
Humans are emotional, physical, and (whether you interpret it as supernatural or not) spiritual creatures. The ritual and belief in something bigger than oneself are an essential part of the process. If you look at other organizations that serve similar roles to conventional churches (such as the Grangers, Freemasons, Shriners, The Lions Club, etc.) they all replicate the ritual and higher purpose commonly associated with churches.
this is an interesting thing to contemplate, the different degrees of sustaining power a community centers upon. If it centers upon trifling things the entropy of the community will just disband over that thing since it has no real drawing power for longevity. Centering upon less trifling more significant things more longevity. Centering upon the deepest things you find a bonding power to overcome the repulsions and noise and can cross the multigenerational barrier. I'll have to think about this somewhat.
It’s not that religion is hardwired, it’s that religions leveraged what’s already there. Like any good parasite they are simply well adapted to their prey.
But those groups (board games, book club) don't fulfill all the same social functions as church/religion. I tend to agree with you (people say it a lot without evidence) but I don't seem to see any examples out there contradicting it. For example, a lot of people seek out religious communities when raising children but I've never heard someone say that about their cycling club
The talk about clubs made me think of "Fight Club" which within the story went on to be a sort of all-encompassing cult. In retrospect, it really wasn't all that subtle about the problem of nihilism in advanced societies.
They're not communities, they're just activities that are attended by a friendship group.
Church is way more meaningful than that. Baptisms, deaths, marriages are run by churches and the meaning can survive the majority of attendants not showing up.
The problem in modern society, is teaching the meaning behind churches. It takes longer than a couple cycling classes and is more demanding on the spirit.
Churches are essentially tribes (i.e. shared identity) unified by a sense of purpose external to one's self.
Cycling clubs and board games groups can bring people together, but they don't ask for the same kind of commitment or engender the same sense of shared identity.
It isn't that they cannot substitute and create many of the benefits, but are unlikely to.
Shared purpose in some ways works better. It certainly can be fostered in the same ways that faith can. Sports works really well and "fringe" activities like birding bind people together really well. For example the solidarity among cyclists (the ones out and about in the countryside) here in Portugal is really strong. Pretty much everyone says hello and you can't stop on the side of the road or trail without everyone who passes asking if everything is ok.
If you think sports don't involve faith, I think you're being naive. Sports have rites, involve hopes for a better tomorrow, and carry belief in the social value of certain behaviours (the discipline).
What powers the typical football club "factotum", showing up every week to cut the grass, inflate balls, wash shirts, clean changing rooms, etc etc...? What powers the cyclist agitating about the need for bike lanes, or proselitizing the sport? There is no seriously rational explanation. It's a type of faith.
The Unitarian Universalists exist. It's not really non-religious, but it is inviting to non-theist people, or those who don't otherwise believe in the supernatural.
People have been trying to do this for at least two hundred years, the Jefferson Bible was completed in 1820. We still can't point to any clear successes.
