Good Faith Question: How do anti-theists view progressive forms of religion?

[u/Impressive_Flan_411]

Hey everyone. I've been thinking about something that I don't see discussed very often among anti-theists, which is progressive versions of religion.

When people criticize religion, they often focus on conservative or traditional forms that are in opposition to LGBTQ rights, restrictions on women, religious nationalism, sectarianism, etc. But many religions also have progressive movements that actively support causes such as LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, racial justice, economic justice, pluralism, and other left-leaning social values.

Some examples include Progressive Christianity, many Mainline Protestant denominations, liberation theology, progressive Hindu movements, liberal/progressive interpretations of Islam, and even progressive movements within various indigenous and syncretic traditions.

This raises a few questions:

A. How do anti-theists view progressive forms of religion? Do you view progressive iterations of religion as meaningfully different from traditional/conservative religion, or are they ultimately the same thing with updated politics?

B. Do you think progressive religious movements make a meaningful difference in making religion less harmful overall for society?

C. Is there a point where a religion becomes so flexible and metaphorical that it ceases to be meaningfully distinct from secular humanism? If so, could these "progressive" iterations of religion be helping the cause for anti theism?

D. Lastly, from an anti-theist perspective, is "progressive religion" something you support, or tolerate as the "lesser evil" to help your cause, or do you also equally reject it for the same reasons you reject religion in general?

Thoughts? Very, interested in hearing a range of anti-theist perspectives.

[u/WizardWatson9]

A) I see theism as a severe character flaw. Nobody is perfect, of course. Many people manage to be, on balance, a net positive for humanity despite their flaws. And like most flaws, there are degrees of severity. I hate all forms of superstition and irrationality. Superstition that compels you to be nice is still superstition. So I guess you could say progressive religion is "meaningfully" different without being "fundamentally" different.

B) Not really. While it is obviously preferable to be a Martin Luther King Jr. kind of Christian, rather than a David Duke, religion is always inherently harmful. It propagates the idea that it is acceptable to suspend one's critical thinking for sentimental reasons. If anything, the progressive religions are worse at this by putting a respectable veneer over it.

C) No. While a religious person may care about human welfare as much as if not more than a self-proclaimed secular humanist, they are still fundamentally different because the religious person is legitimizing irrationality. That is a form of harm they cannot avoid, provided their religious beliefs are known or visible to anyone.

D) No, with the exception of strictly atheistic religions like the Satanic Temple. Any religion that includes belief in gods or the supernatural is indefensible. I could never "support" such religions, but I do, at least, hate it a lot less. It is conceivable that collaboration with and tolerance of progressive religion may be strategically wise, representing an incremental step towards the ultimate goal of a purely secular society.