Having just read Dawkins's The God Delusion I was appalled to learn how reviled atheists are in America. In Europe a person's stance (including politician's) on religion is largely irrelevant unless they draw attention to it. What is going on in America? What should skeptics and atheist philosophers do there to point out that atheism is a reasoned and logical viewpoint that doesn't presuppose immorality, etc.? It beggars belief that all presidential aspirants have to (in some cases as Dawkins remarks) probably pretend to be Christians in order to have any chance of being elected. I know of the Atheist's Wager, acceptance of which seems braver to me than blindly accepting the religious promises of heaven as dictated by those who brought you up. And what place do 'faith-based initiatives' have in an ostensibly secular government where church and state are separate under the constitution?

Comments

Don't believe everything you read. In my experience atheists are fine in the US, although as you say might not be advised to be frank about their views if they are standing as candidates for election in some parts of the country. A recent survey showed that atheists are the fastest growing group of believers in the US, in their case believers in nothing I suppose, and along with the pious enthusiasms that flourish here, a great deal of religious scepticism exists also, and always has. Dawkins has an axe to grind, and does it very well, and clearly it is currently fashionable to poke fun at the Americans from the standpoint of cynical and intelligent Europe, but like all fashions this will one day come to an end and a more realistic view of the diversity of American religious and non-religious life will emerge.

I take a more pessimistic view than Professor Leaman. I think that an avowed atheist would have absolutely no hope of election to President or likely to any major office in any (or almost any) state, regardless of his or her other attributes or views, and that an avowed agnostic would have no hope of election to President or most major offices in most states, and that a candidate who did not strongly avow being a Christian (or perhaps Jew) would have almost no hope of being elected President. And I think that these facts are causes for concern for a number of reasons. For instance, it indicates a specific type of intolerance, one that I think is largely based on a failure to understand what atheists do (and can) believe. Though Professor Leaman's is correct when he says atheists are "believers in nothing" if he is referring only to supernatural deities, atheists can and usually do believe (often strongly):

that life has meaning and purpose
that there are moral truths or at least better and worse ways of living and acting
and that it is moral to care for others, be open to others' belief systems (when theirs do not harm others), work to improve the world, etc.
that humans are free and morally responsible to a uniquely well-developed degree
that humans have minds with important capacities for consciousness, self-awareness, love, and spirituality (of a certain sort)
that humans are special (even if not specially created) and each human is unique and of value
and so on

Once one recognizes that atheists can and do believe these things, it is difficult to see why choosing not to believe in a God with supernatural powers (and perhaps who has the ability to lessen suffering but chooses not to) or in special creation or in immaterial souls or in life after bodily death--why not believing such improbable and often unprovable things--should count against one's ability to be an effective political leader or most anything else.

Western Europeans in general seem to me to be more enlightened about these issues than many Americans. And while Dawkins rhetoric may hurt more than it helps, he is right that America is religious in a way that includes too many people being too intolerant of atheists (even though "atheists are fine in the US" in that, like most Americans, they have more freedoms than they have had in most places in the world during most of history). He is also right that beliefs based on faith should not get a free pass and should be subject to open discussion and debate.

I agree with Eddy that atheists are indeed regarded with a good deal of skepticism in the United States, and, in particular, that an "out of the closet" atheist would have a hard time being elected to national office. That said, I think his own comments reveal that he is almost as ignorant of the varieties of religious belief as are the believers he is criticizing. I think it's probably safe to say that a majority of the people at my church do not "believe in a God with supernatural powers ... or in special creationor in immaterial souls", with the only question I'd leave open being how many of us believe in some form of continued existence ("life" is probably not the correct term) after death. To borrow from the words of someone who wrote recently in Time discussing Barack Obama's religious beliefs, for many relgious folks, God is more a matter of mystery than of miracles.

I can't be sure whether the pronouns in Richard's second sentence are supposed to refer to me or to Dawkins. If he (Richard H.) is referring to me, I'm not sure why. I don't see anything in what I said that suggests I believe all religious people share the same beliefs or that I am "ignorant of the varieties of religious belief." To clarify, there are some religious people in this country--I would say, too many--who act as though atheism (or perhaps any other failure to share their own faith-based beliefs) is a sign of moral terpitude (e.g., of the sort that disqualifies you for public office). Of course, it works the other way too. I certainly hold it against a political candidate if he or she avows certain religious doctrines (e.g., intelligent design).

On that note, I think another potential concern of the influence of fundamentalist religious organizations and individuals on politics in America is their ability to undermine scientific research and science education.

The clarification is welcome, but the reason for my remark was simply that I was putting these two remarks together: (i) "I think that an avowed atheist would have absolutely no hope ofelection to President or likely to any major office in any (or almostany) state, regardless of his or her other attributes orviews..."; (ii) "Once one recognizes that atheists can and do believe these [sensible] things, itis difficult to see why choosing not to believe in a God withsupernatural powers...should count against one's ability to bean effective political leader or most anything else." Unless I'm missing something, (ii), read against (i), strongly suggests that an atheist is someone who rejects supernaturalism, etc, which rather strongly suggests that a theist is someone who endorses it. Perhaps (ii) was badly stated, and should have said simply, "...it is difficult to see why choosing not to believe in a divine being should count against...".

Read another response by Oliver Leaman, Eddy Nahmias, Richard Heck

Read another response about Justice, Religion