The Atheist-Progressive Alliance
I've long argued that there's a natural alliance between atheism and feminism, for the same reason that there's a natural alliance between atheism and GLBT activism: because we all understand what it's like to experience oppression and discrimination rooted in religion, and we ought to grasp that by cooperating to diminish religion's power, we can achieve goals we all hold in common. And in spite of a few recent, high-profile flamewars over questions of sexism and harassment in the atheist community, this political logic still holds very much true, as evidenced by a Gallup poll from May 29:
Americans with no religious attachment (self-identified atheists, agnostics, and those with simply no religious preference) identify as pro-choice by a 49-percentage-point margin over pro-life, 68% to 19%. This represents the strongest propensity toward the pro-choice position of any major U.S. demographic (as distinct from political) subgroup.
This finding is a strong argument for the fundamentally religious and faith-based nature of anti-abortion arguments: as people lose their religious beliefs, their pro-life views drop away as well. If anti-abortion views were based on evidence and reason, then we'd have every right to expect that the atheist community would be more evenly divided, and that there wouldn't be such a chasm between the religious and the nonreligious on the issue of choice. This is the same unobjectionable logic we use to conclude that rejection of evolution is driven mostly by religious belief.
And it's not just choice or evolution where we can see this sharp divide between theists and atheists. One of my first posts on the old Daylight Atheism was about a Pew survey which asked about the permissibility of torturing people suspected of terrorism. Here the gap wasn't as dramatic, but it was still significant: secularists were more likely than Christians to say that torture is never justified, by a 10-percentage-point margin. And of course, same-sex marriage is another issue where the nonreligious overwhelmingly come down on one side: we support marriage equality by a stratospheric 76% margin.
All these data points show that, while there's no necessary connection between atheism and progressive political views, in practice it usually does work out that way. I leave it up to you, readers, to weigh in on why that is. Are these the correct views, and atheists, being the most rational people around, are more likely to hit on them? (That's obviously the most self-serving possibility.) Are we driven by an instinctive rejection of the political views that have most commonly been supported by religion? Absent a belief in heaven, do we put greater emphasis on compassion and fairness in this life? Or is there another explanation I haven't considered?
Whatever the reasons for this correlation, it's clear that the growth of atheism's numbers and political influence is a development that should be welcomed by feminists, science advocates, gay-rights activists, and other people who uphold progressive values. As PZ Myers puts it, atheists could be the progressive air force, altering the political landscape and shaking up debates that are bogged down in deadlock or dominated by right-wing pressure groups marching in lockstep. And there's an obvious corollary for liberals: regardless of whether you're an atheist yourself, everything you do to weaken the power of dogmatic, authoritarian religion will help bring all your other goals closer to fruition!
The ability to speak clearly, succinctly, and powerfully is easier than you think
The ability to communicate effectively can make or break a person's assessment of your intelligence, competence, and authenticity.
Antimicrobial resistance is growing worldwide, rendering many "work horse" medicines ineffective. Without intervention, drug-resistant pathogens could lead to millions of deaths by 2050. Thankfully, companies like Pfizer are taking action.
- Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens are one of the largest threats to global health today.
- As we get older, our immune systems age, increasing our risk of life threatening infections. Without reliable antibiotics, life expectancy could decline for the first time in modern history.
- If antibiotics become ineffective, common infections could result in hospitalization or even death. Life-saving interventions like cancer treatments and organ transplantation would become more difficult, more often resulting in death. Routine procedures would become hard to perform.
- Without intervention, resistant pathogens could result in 10 million annual deaths by 2050.
- By taking a multi-faceted approach—inclusive of adherence to good stewardship, surveillance and responsible manufacturing practices, as well as an emphasis on prevention and treatment—companies like Pfizer are fighting to help curb the spread.
The climate change we're witnessing is more dramatic than we might think.
A lazy buzz phrase – 'Is this the new normal?' – has been doing the rounds as extreme climate events have been piling up over the past year. To which the riposte should be: it's worse than that – we're on the road to even more frequent, more extreme events than we saw this year.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.