In general, I find people who complain about atheism (or “the New Atheism”) being a religion annoying and silly. I agree with the Daily Dish reader who pointed out that this argument boils down to saying:

Since Harris does not believe in a god he should not concern himself over the trifling matter of jihadists flying planes into buildings. Since Hitchens is an atheist the murder of teenage girls at the hands of their fundamentalist fathers, brothers and uncles should be of no concern to him. How indifference towards religion should follow from non-belief in religion is not explained, probably because you can’t get there from here.

On the other hand, some atheists really do seem to want to make atheism into a religion, or at least into a religion substitute. In particular, I’ve noticed Hemant’s interest in the health of the “atheist movement,” and statements like “We can’t tear down religion without offering something to replace it.”

First, the health of the “atheist movement” has always been directly tied to how worrisome people perceive religion to be. The U.S. atheist movement of the 80′s and 90′s was driven by the need to respond to creationism, to the slick and aggressive evangelism of groups like Campus Crusade, and to attempts by fundamentalist leaders like Jerry Falwell to influence government policy. In the early 21st century it got a rapid series of boost from September 11th, the Bush administration, the Dover trial, and gay marriage debates (which, if you have gay friends who are out, can feel like a fight between religion and your friends). With the Dover trial won and Obama in office and gay marriage making headway, vocal atheism is diminishing as the perceived threat of religion diminishes. If Sarah Palin becomes president in 2012, expect a resurgence.

This may sound like a weird trajectory for a “movement” to take, but it’s really perfectly sensible. When UFO hysteria is big, it’s a good thing we had people who could write sharp skeptical takes on the issue. Now that’s not important. It’s the nature of any critical intellectual project.

Similarly, it’s not clear what it is that religion provides that atheists need to come up with a replacement for. I can still make myself halfway understand the human impulses that make religion tempting, but when I look back on the part of my life when I followed them, my former self just ends up looking very, very confused, not like somebody with a crucial unmet need.

Are community and ritual the issues? There are already all-kinds of non-religious groups that provide these things. I would have thought that obvious, though maybe I’m just lucky to have spent four years of my life in Madison, Wisconsin, a city with an incredible number of quirky subcultures for a city of its size, all with their own little rituals. Even if you don’t know how to find that in your city, if you wanted to start a group like that there are better bases for that sort of thing that “not believing in God.”

Now, when people talk about atheist community, often it quickly comes out that they find the idea of only socializing with atheists attractive. I really don’t get this. I’ve never made an effort to date only atheist women, and I have no problem having religious friends. I can understand why some people might find this attractive in an abstract, “all-else-being-equal” way, but all else is rarely equal. There are more important things to look for in friends than not having a particular odd belief, and more important character flaws to avoid than a particular odd belief.

Worst of all, from my point of view, is talk of “atheist charities.” There are already a number of charities out there that aren’t actively religious and whose effectiveness is well established. Why anyone who has their priorities straight–who cares more about helping people than boosting the status of atheists–would think an “atheist charity” is a good idea is beyond me.

Admittedly, Luke Muehlhauser’s idea for an “atheist church sounds pretty nifty to me, as does a similar idea once floated by Richard Carrier (in a blog post I can’t find right now). But Luke’s idea is more accurately described as a “non-religious group dedicated to self-improvement,” he explicitly envisions it as not requiring any particular beliefs:

It would be a warm, friendly, welcoming, pleasant place to go. We’d have all sorts of programs for how to solve certain problems with the latest techniques advocated by scientific data (cognitive behavioral therapy, personal finance skills, business skills, dating skills, public speaking skills, etc.). We wouldn’t require any beliefs or creeds – it would just be a place to come to improve yourself and one’s community with the techniques that have proven to be most effective, and to enjoy the company of like-minded people.

The lesson from Luke’s bit of inspiration (gotten from Scientology, of all places) is that there are some religious groups that do things well that non-religious groups don’t currently do well, and it would be nice to have non-religious groups for that purpose, but that doesn’t amount to a need for an atheist church, or some “God shaped hole in our hearts” that atheists need to conjure up some way to fill.