Clarification: "Good without God"

So, anyone who reads the Brown Daily Herald will have probably noticed that my 11/10 column "Good without God" got a well-deserved* critique from Anish Mitra '10. The full text of his column can be found here:

Anish Mitra '10: Good without God? A response

What I was more interested in was sharing a little response that attempts to clarify most of his objections; feel free to dissect this in a comment.

Shortly after my “Good without God” column was run, I discussed it with a religious friend of mine. Her first impression seemed to echo Mitra's point exactly: “Are you trying to turn atheism into some kind of religion?”

Not really. We are trying to form organizations, but of a distinct flavor from that of a religion. What we lack is tradition and practice: holy books, sacraments, prayers. But we do have common principles. Our principles guide our interests. It’s entirely reasonable to seek out others who share common interests. The difference is that our group doesn’t seek to dictate the beliefs and thoughts of its members in the same way that a religion would.

He makes a very good point about the tactics of the Big Apple Coalition of Reason’s methods for promoting their cause: it is recruitment. But recruitment hardly defines a religion: the army recruits. The Red Cross recruits. Political parties recruit. Any group of people working towards a common goal must at some point recruit new members. (For comparison, consider the reasons why religions recruit: to increase tithe revenue; to convince impressionable young men and women to strap on vests of explosives and step on crowded buses; because they honestly think that they’re “saving souls”, etc.)

Granted, this does suggest that atheist organizations like the Coalition of Reason set out to accomplish some goals. Atheists in general should have ideological goals, which include broadening the public’s understanding of science, fighting for increased social freedoms, and the strengthened separation of church and state.

While I agree that religious individuals, from historic titans like Isaac Newton to contemporary intellectuals like Ken Miller, have made great strides in the advancement of scientific knowledge. However, religious dogma has been science’s single greatest obstacle for the past thousand years. It was religious hubris that FALSELY placed the Earth at the center of the solar system. It was the story of creation that caused the FALSE belief that the world is only six thousand years old. It was religious ignorance that gave rise to the FALSE belief that mental disease was caused by demonic possession. Even today, it is religious obstinance that stands in the way of stem-cell research. This stands opposed to our principles, and we have decided that we are not going to stand idly by while superstition holds a greater sway over public policy than reason.

At this point, it makes very little sense to try to equate an atheist organization to a religion. We aren’t recruiting for selfish reasons. It is perfectly reasonable for us to seek out others with similar interests and principles. And if religions have the ability to sway public opinions and dictate public policy, then we should at least have the same sort of opportunity to voice our concerns: not as individuals, not as constituents, but as a group.

Don’t get me wrong; I very much agree with Mitra that atheism should be the conclusion of one’s personal reasoning, and I wish I hadn’t glossed over that fact in my column. But just as those who choose to believe in God join a church, synagogue or mosque, those who choose otherwise deserve the right to associate with like-minded individuals.

*I say "well-deserved" in reference to my shameless mockery of another columnist's religious frustration a couple months ago, a sarcastic piece of which I am far too proud for my own good.