Dale McGowan

Article / Updated 10-20-2023

Outraged by the role religion had played in keeping women in submission, many feminist leaders of the early Feminist movement identified as atheists and agnostics. Almost every traditional religion puts women in an inferior or even degraded role compared to men. Nearly all religions bar women from serving as clergy. Women were (and often still are) held responsible for humanity’s fall from grace in the Old Testament, told to stay silent and submissive in church in the New Testament, and relegated to a servant’s role in the Qur’an. Hinduism instructs wives to worship their husbands as gods, even if said husbands lack a single good quality and sleep around. Even Jainism, has one of its two main sects calling women “intrinsically harmful” and saying they can’t achieve nirvana without first being reborn a man. It does make sense that religions born more than 2,000 years ago would pick up the norms and values of their time. But when their scriptures carried bad ideas forward through the centuries along with the good, refusing all edits, until they collided with modern Enlightenment ideas like equality — that’s when they needed a change. And change was exactly what the first wave of feminists in the 19th century demanded. Those early feminist leaders include the following: Frances Wright: When not visiting Thomas Jefferson or other movers and shakers of her time, agnostic feminist Frances Wright (1795–1852) traveled the United States giving public lectures in favor of women’s rights and the abolition of slavery. And she directly — very directly — condemned religion as the main problem in both areas. Doing so took incredible courage, in part because Wright was the first woman to speak publicly to an audience of both men and women in the United States, the first to publicly suggest that women should be equal to men, and the first to openly criticize religion. In a situation of multiple firsts, most people would have been walking on eggshells, but not Wright. Her reward was to be assailed by clergy and press alike as “the great Red Harlot of Infidelity” and the “Whore of Babylon.” After many of her own lectures, she had to flee through the back door to avoid being pummeled by the crowd. Ernestine Rose: Rose (1810–1892) followed on Wright’s heels, using the same medium (public speaking) on the same topics (women’s rights and slavery) with the same primary target (religion) and the same result (outrage, name-calling, and threats of violence). She was elected president of the National Women’s Rights Convention in 1854, but not before several members tried to boot her from the platform because of her atheism. Susan B. Anthony, an agnostic herself, insisted that “every religion — or none — should have an equal right on the platform.” The following year, one newspaper said Rose, being “a female Atheist,” is “a thousand times below a prostitute.” Elizabeth Cady Stanton: Stanton (1815–1902), an atheist, also supported abolition and women’s rights. Like Wright and Rose, she shocked many of those fighting with her when she insisted, loudly and often, that “the Bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman’s emancipation.” Stanton and Susan B. Anthony co-authored the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” — which became law 18 years after Stanton’s death.

Cheat Sheet / Updated 03-27-2016

Atheism is the simple but kind of startling idea that no god or gods exist. If you’re interested in exploring the topic, it helps to know some of the labels for different types and degrees of religious doubt, some of the most important thinkers in the history of atheism, and a few of the most fascinating spots on Earth for just saying no to God.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

Atheism, humanism, and all the rest of the nontheistic isms show up in different ways around the world. What follows is a list of some of the most interesting places to watch for developments in religious disbelief. Earth: Current home to 1.1 billion nontheistic people. Ireland: Where those who call themselves “religious” dropped from 69 percent to 47 percent in seven years — the largest drop on Earth. United States: Where the religiously unaffiliated made up the single largest belief bloc (23 percent) of those electing Barack Obama to his second presidential term. Norway: Where 80 percent of the population belongs to the Lutheran Church of Norway but 72 percent don’t believe in God. Québec: Once 83 percent Catholic and the most religious province in Canada, now 83 percent Catholic and the least religious province in Canada. Yes. United Kingdom: Where there’s a state religion and religious education and prayer services in schools — and belief in God is currently down to 38 percent.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

The history of atheism is filled with important figures — people who have thought outside of the religious box of their times and often used their eloquence and intellect to convince other to do so as well. Some have also distinguished themselves as moral or intellectual heroes in the great issues of their day. This list introduces a few of the biggest and best names in the history of atheism. Epicurus: Greek philosopher. Felt that fear of the gods is the greatest obstacle to human happiness, and that human happiness is good. Lucretius: Roman philosopher who described (and preferred) a world without gods, then wrote a 7,400-line poem about it. Jinasena: Ninth-century Indian teacher who railed against intelligent design theory before it had a name. *al-Rawândî: Ninth-century Islamic philosopher who called Muhammad a liar — out loud. Chang Tsai: Eleventh-century Chinese philosopher who said heaven doesn’t have a mind, and if we had one ourselves, we’d notice that. Jean Meslier: Eighteenth-century French Catholic atheist priest. Yes, you read that right. Baron d’Holbach: Eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinker, writer, enabler. Ernestine Rose: Courageous nineteenth-century social reformer, abolitionist, feminist, atheist. Robert Ingersoll: Great nineteenth-century agnostic orator. Bertrand Russell: Hugely important twentieth-century atheist philosopher, teapot maker. Madalyn Murray O’Hair: First president of American Atheists, plaintiff in the lawsuit that ended organized Bible readings in US public schools, designated atheist bogeyperson for the late twentieth century. Richard Dawkins: Renowned evolutionary biologist, current designated atheist bogeyperson.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

Atheism and other kinds of religious doubt are chock-a-block with labels and terms. Some are more important than others; some are neutral or positive; others are used (even by atheists) as putdowns. The following list includes all of the major labels — good, bad, and ugly. Atheist: Doesn’t believe a god or gods exist. Agnostic: Not sure whether a god or gods exist. Freethinker: Holds opinions based on independent reasoning without the undue influence of authority, doctrine, or tradition. Skeptic: Withholds judgment pending actual evidence. Humanist: Focuses on this natural world and this life. Sometimes used as a synonym for secular humanist. No, doesn’t worship humans. Secular humanist: A humanist who specifically adds, “I don’t believe in God.” Still doesn’t worship humans. Secularist: Used to mean someone who wanted to keep church and government separate. Now refers to a person who lives without religion. Antitheist: Believes religion poisons everything and prays (hopes) for a future without it. Apatheist: Doesn’t care whether there’s a God or not. Is annoyed that you asked. Accommodationist: An atheist who seeks common ground with the religious. Much hugging. Deist: Does not believe in God. Believes in “God.” Pantheist: Believes the universe and God are one and the same, but not exactly.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

Science fiction writer Isaac Asimov calls the Bible “the most potent force for atheism ever conceived” — and many atheists agree. But most people are only familiar with that carefully handpicked sampler of inspiring passages from the Bible. For each and every inspirational passage that finds its way into pulpits and needlepoint pillows, half a dozen immoral horrors stay pretty well hidden. Most atheists are willing to agree that the Bible has some really magnificent passages. Few have found a more eloquent tribute to love than the one in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. That’s why it is read at many weddings. The 23rd Psalm is unsurpassed for its poetic expression of peace and acceptance in the face of death. And the Sermon on the Mount distills the best ethical principles of Christianity into what has been rightly called the moral essence of the faith. However, the Bible includes some very bad stuff, there’s no better way to see than by actually reading the Bible and judging for yourself. You may not want to read the whole thing. You certainly can if you want, but for now, just start with two books: Genesis and Matthew. Religious scholar Stephen Prothero estimates that 80 percent of the religious references you’ll hear in American culture — from political speeches to figures of speech to Christmas carols — get their start in one of those two books. Genesis will take you three hours of reading, Matthew even less. And before you reach your first bathroom break in the middle of Genesis, you’ll encounter the stories of two fathers and their children. Both fathers behave with astonishing cruelty toward their kids, and — here’s the thing — both are immediately praised and rewarded by God. Worse than that, God even ordered one of those cruel acts. Now I don’t hold such stories against God, by the way. Hold it against the Bible and those who wrote it. And as you continue slogging through the Old Testament, that work of the human imagination has the poor Guy first instructing his people not to kill, then directly ordering them to kill neighboring peoples by the tens of thousands, including every child and infant. “It says what?!” asks God. (See, even he knows the book mostly from needlepoint pillows.) In Matthew you can find the story of a mortal woman impregnated by a god just as fascinating and compelling as when you read it in the Greek myth of Danaë and Perseus. And for all the beauty and moral poetry in the rest of the Gospel, Matthew is where Jesus introduces the world to hell, speaking with some satisfaction about the eternal “wailing and gnashing of teeth” by those individuals who don’t follow his teachings. There is a conflict between the Old Testament and the New Testament; it is commonly believed the new cancels out the old. Not so according to Matthew 5:17-18 as God talks about the Old Law (Old Testament) not being abolished, but instead fulfilled. So all the commands to kill homosexuals, disobedient children, and nonbelievers, and to enslave and kill the people of neighboring countries — until Heaven and Earth pass away, it’s all still in force. Okay, enough sour cherries. Perhaps you can see why reading the Bible (or the Qur’an, which fares no better, or whatever the home team’s scripture may be) is an important part of the process for many people who come to doubt, or completely reject, the religious claims around them.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

From a country of atheist Lutherans to a province of atheist Catholics, there are some of interesting spots on the globe for religious disbelief. They also have different flavors of atheism. Atheism in Scandinavia Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are three of the four least religious countries on Earth, but you wouldn’t know that on the surface. In fact, nearly 80 percent of Norwegians belong to the Lutheran Church of Norway, for example, but 72 percent say they don’t believe in God. Only 3 percent attend church more than monthly, and most don’t attend at all. Membership has more to do with cultural identity than belief. Scandinavians tend not so much toward outright atheism as apatheism, meaning religion is just off the radar. Sociologist Phil Zuckerman says that when he asks a Swede, Norwegian, or Dane about their religious beliefs, they tend to look perplexed, like someone had asked for the karmic profile of their crown chakra. More than 80 percent said religion is unimportant in their daily lives. And by almost every measure, they’re the most ethical, orderly, nonviolent societies in the world. Atheism in Québec Québec was historically the most religious of the Canadian provinces by a mile. The French permitted only Catholics to settle what was then called New France, so it isn’t surprising that as late as the 1960s, 83 percent of the population was still Catholic. In the early 21st century, Québec is still about 83 percent Catholic — but it’s now the least religious province by a wide margin. It has the lowest regular church attendance of all provinces (10 percent) and the lowest percent of people who consider themselves religious at all (22 percent, compared to 36 percent for all Canada). So how do you go from the most religious province to the least religious without losing any Catholics? It’s simple. Well no, it’s not — these things never are. Surrounded by English-speaking Protestants, French Canadians are eager to keep their unique identity — and “French” goes with “Catholic” in Canada even more than it does with “fries” in the United States. Yet educated Catholics are among the most likely of all religious identities to quit believing. But in Québec, you can’t throw off Catholicism without also throwing off your Frenchness. So even as they’ve stopped believing, most Catholic Québécois have remained “cultural Catholics.” There’s no better proof of the change than a 2002 referendum to switch the provincial school system from Catholic to secular. The referendum passed easily and with very little fuss. Atheism in the United States: The Unchurched Belt(s) Most people know about the Bible Belt. Journalist H.L. Mencken first came up with that description in 1924 for the Southeastern quarter of the United States, a place with about 2.5 Baptist churches per person. Less well known — and much less catchy — is the Unchurched Belt, a region along the Pacific coast so named in 1985 for having the lowest church attendance and lowest professed belief in the country. The Unchurched Belt originally included Washington, Oregon, and California, all with 22 to 25 percent nonreligious populations. But by 2000, California had become more religious (mostly because of an increase in the Catholic Hispanic population) while New England became even less religious than it was before. The top US states for nonreligious identity in 2012 are Vermont (34 percent) New Hampshire (29 percent) Wyoming (28 percent) Alaska (27 percent) Maine (25 percent) Washington (25 percent) Nevada (24 percent) Oregon (24 percent) So the “Bible Belt” isn’t really any kind of a Belt at the moment. Stuck on opposite ends of the continent, the two relatively secular zones look more like the Unchurched Earring-and-1980s-Mobile-Phone.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

British atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling had an arresting thought about creating a Humanist Bible: How would world history have been different if the writers of the Bible used Greek and Roman philosophy instead of local religions as their sources? But they didn’t so Grayling did. The result is The Good Book: A Humanist Bible (Walker & Co.). Despite the title, Grayling didn’t mean for his humanist bible to shove the Bible bible aside. He wanted to create a secular contribution to the age-old conversation humanity has with itself about the good. So he did what the creators of the Bible did — selected texts from a number of different sources, then edited them, wove them together, and added a bit of his own thoughts to make it flow. But here’s the twist: It’s not just a collection of excerpts, an approach that’s been done a thousand times before. Instead, Grayling put everything into a kind of biblical structure, with chapters and verses, allowing the reader to really imagine that the original may have turned out very differently with different sources. If you know Plato and Aristotle, you’ll see their ideas pop up in this or that verse, but without citation. It’s a completely different way of experiencing their work, and you get the same kind of narrative flow you get from scriptures. It’s well worth a look, for theists and atheists alike.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

Most religious believers want to live in a world in which people behave ethically. Funny thing…so do most atheists. An ethical society is simply safer, less scary, easier, more satisfying to live in, and simply better, whether or not a person believes in God. That’s the kind of place everyone want their kids to live in. It’s the kind of place everyone wants to live in. Be careful not to confuse atheism with moral nihilism — the idea that nothing is inherently right or wrong. In fact, when it comes to defining right and wrong behavior, studies show an amazing amount of agreement on the most basic ethical ideas, even among people with wildly different religious and political beliefs. They may put stronger emphasis in one area or another, and there are certainly some areas of disagreement. But that’s up in the branches. Down at the roots of moral understanding, most atheists and theists agree that they want to live in a world where people treat each other fairly and don’t harm one another. After everyone recognizes this shared desire, the community at large can all talk about how to make it a reality.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

Atheist philosophers didn’t really kill God, though Neitzche and Hardy have helped lay God to rest. And though philosophy has been pounding away at religious assumptions for centuries now, science ended up putting those assumptions on life support. An atheist philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), finally took the pulse of God and declared an end to the whole idea. When he said God was dead, it wasn’t the jubilant whoop! most people think it was. On the contrary, he captured the despair many poets and writers expressed during this time of slipping religious faith. Thomas Hardy finished what Nietzsche started by laying Jehovah to rest in a poem titled, appropriately enough, God’s Funeral. A traditional Anglican believer for most of his life, Hardy eventually lost his Christian belief, adopting instead a kind of pantheistic view of the universe rather than a stringently atheist view. Like Nietzsche, Hardy didn’t express the feeling of freedom and elation that some others did, especially in later centuries. For Hardy, the loss was too fresh. It was a kind of bereavement. The poem describes a solemn procession across a half-lit plain, carrying a dead figure. At first it “seemed manlike,” then changes form, becoming a cloud, then seeming to sprout enormous wings, capturing the changes in people’s concept of God as they struggle to make it work. As the procession slowly passes, Hardy remembers the history of this “man-projected Figure” — first jealous and fierce (Old Testament), then just and blessed (New Testament). Needing solace, humanity deceived itself as long as it could, he says, until reality made it too hard to believe at all and thus is born his brand of atheism. In the middle is a wonderful bit of empathy for those individuals who continue to believe. Incredulous believers are chasing after the funeral procession in angry denial, calling it a mockery and a lie, shouting, “Still he lives to us!” Hardy doesn’t call them fools and instead sympathizes with their loss.