*key to this article is that I simply don’t care if Christianity is true. Or if atheism is true. I don’t care if the idea of “Jesus” is true or not true. I’m not interested in debating the dogmatic value of one or the other.
I keep reading stuff in the news about atheism rising up against the evil of religion. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et al. I’m puzzled by their assertions that religion is on its way out. (And also by their assertion that the danger of religion is greater than ever, which seems to clash with the idea that it’s fading. Perhaps they mean that religion is on its way out among Western intellectuals, but increasing among the irrational masses. Elitism?).
Let me provide a historian’s perspective on faith vs. reason, or whatever you want to call the battle. Religion is not going away. It has perhaps drifted off for varying portions of the intelligentsia, but for regular Joes and Janes, it never left. It will never leave. People have been predicting the end of faith for a couple of centuries now, and it’s only grown in the United States (91%, last I checked, which is an increase due in great part to immigration). As my 19th century history prof said last term: “academics always think that ‘oh, this happened; now religion will go away and people will be nice and secular.’ But it’s never gone away.”
It just keeps changing. Faith is a moving target, whereas atheism depends on a fairly static concept of what religion/faith is. You want to talk Darwin? Religion mutates far faster than atheism possibly can. Atheism is forced to define itself in the negative, against that which religion is. Survival of the fittest, yo.
Now the flip side of that is I think there have always been unbelievers. Historically speaking they’ve been silenced, but now they are free (at least in the Western world) to voice their opinions. And what do they do? Go after religion with all the rhetorical zeal of the Spanish Inquisition. This current burst of atheist attacks are just so deadly boring, vindictive, and unoriginal.
Moreover the idea that atheism ought to be enforced from the top down (preventing parents from passing on their religious beliefs, which Dawkins considers a form of child abuse) is a dangerous idea. This is the exercise of force, and a violation of the private sphere. I have yet to see an instance in which forced un-belief has worked. Christianity has come back to Eastern Europe and Russia in a big way, and I know from my childhood in China (last atheist Communist bastion?) that many Chinese are not rational atheists. There was always some quiet variety of Buddhism, ancestor worship, even Christianity. I emphasize that these are common people–farmers, shopkeepers, laborers, etc, not intellectuals.
I’m interested in reading E.O. Wilson’s Creation, which is meant to appeal to religious people to join with scientists to save the earth. I bet it’s a worthy approach. However, if scientists like Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett keep spewing vitriol and preaching damnation against the faithful, how can they expect the religious to fall in line with them? It’s like beating the shit out of a stranger and then asking him to help you move next Saturday.
As for where I stand, I’m constantly reassessing my position. At this point I’m not a believer, but I’m certainly not an atheist or a non-believer. I don’t see myself joining any religious group. But I do believe that there are people who do want to attend church or temple, who do want to believe in something that sparks their imaginations, and also that there are people who don’t want to do these things. Fine. The idea of a democracy is that we can and ought to allow all these worldviews to exist.
The troubling thing is the militancy of these atheists, which is just as troubling as the militancy of evangelicals (Haggard etc). If you want to convince people to be atheists, go for it. That’s free speech. Atheists should definitely be allowed to send missionaries around to annoy people while they’re trying to have dinner. During said missions, it would be much more productive to talk to prospective converts with respect for their intelligence and integrity as human beings, and not to ridicule them and advocate the seizure of their children. (Or even suggest murder, because “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,” in the words of Sam Harris. Yes, kill the infidels).
p.s. an interesting article showing that belief in the paranormal increases with education. Though I agree with the suggestion that it’s probably just that education makes students better at justifying their previously held beliefs. I would also add that belief in the paranormal does not necessarily make anyone a believer in God or religion per se.
This is strange. For the most part, I agree with your position, insofar as I acknowledge that there is much that I do not know, and that the drive “to know” probably isn’t going away, either in its theistic, or its atheistic forms. These are different ways of asserting certainties, after all, and saying there is not a god is the mirror opposite of saying there is NOT a god. On the face of it. However, I am troubled by this method of forcing equivalences. Those who say that there is a god do not stop there.
I make particular reference here to Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but I think the remarks are generalisable to other “revealed truths” also. These “yes there is a god” people go on to say that this god, who created our universe, and all others, and everything everywhere, also took care to pick out (from the whole long timestream of human history) one person at a time, usually in the middle of the desert, and tell him–strange aversion to women, this god has–the whole truth, and the only truth, and then refrained from saying anything about this subject or any other ever again. Thus, this god, who perhaps understably took care to legislate everything that might possibly concern such a people in the context of their particular time in history, nevertheless did not remember also to leave instructions for subsequent stages of human development, which would have saved all of us some serious argument. The failure of these sacred texts to account for modern science, population movements, environmental concerns and so forth is, at the least, worrying and at the worst, cause for dismissal.
I don’t think science has all the answers. But then science knows it does not have all the answers. I don’t think religion has all the answers. But religion insists that it has all the answers. If I have to choose, I’ll go with those open-minded enough to admit that an open mind is a good thing, even if I am being open-minded in the direction of skepticism about them.
Further, atheists are NOT as militant as the religious. This is a dangerous and unjust fallacy. Atheists, as far as I am aware (and yes, I know what Sam Harris wrote) have so far not caused anyone to die as a result of their insistence on believing; do not pretend to legislate rules of behaviour for others, even unto killing them for having different opinions; do not frighten little children with horror stories that are supposedly “good for them..” (as an aside, I’d like to point out that those who speak of falling standards of morality, and want to put warning labels on entertainment and literature because of its corrupting effects on the kids have no hesitation in exposing their children to wild tales of vengeance, murder, genocide, wife-abuse, rape and so forth in the “sacred texts.”); nor attempt to bring us into line with stories of a god so intrusive and controlling that he goes beyond anything Stalin and Hitler ever dreamed of (listening not just to our acts and deeds, but to our THOUGHTS as well? Watching EVERYTHING we do? Prone to punish us just for SAYING his name in vain? What police state was ever more frightening than this?); and, as Hitchens et. al. point out, apparently delighted with a parent who was ready to sacrifice his son–note please that it is never even suggested that this son had done anything wrong–just because he believes his god requires this in appeasement of his (the father’s) own sins. What system of justice would we be willing to entertain that would allow the CHILDREN of the transgressor to be tried and sentenced in the place of the actual culprit? What system of justice would then tell the son of the culprit — I am supposing here that Abraham really had done something wrong for which his god required sacrifice–that he should respect and revere this self-same father, and failure to do this would be enough to get him (the son) killed? See the commandment on respecting parents. Punishment for failure to do this is death. How does this make sense to anyone?
I too, used to think that the world is much better off with a “live and let live” attitude. That is, I am free to question, and all others are free to believe if they want. Well, yes. However, the case that Dawkins brings up is something that we have to pay attention to. If the religious are merely telling their children to be nice and helpful to neighbours, and charitable and etc., well that is lovely, of course. But that just means that they are good people, not that they are religious people. The truly religious read the Bible for daily instruction on how to lead their lives, and they TEACH THEIR CHILDREN that what they read in the Bible trumps everything else, including their own judgement. So, if you are comfortable with the idea of little kids being taught that it is okay to kill the enemies of the believers, then I am happy for you that you live in such an undisturbed place of peace. However, for the rest of us, the brainwashing of children who grow up to be adults and see nothing wrong in killing their sisters for any number of alleged transgressions is frankly horrifying. I would have to be with Dawkins on that point.
Indoctrinating children is child abuse. The idea of “Hitler Youth” frightens people, as does all those lovely young kids who were denouncing their parents left and right in Soviet times. Children who are involuntarily surrounded by morally repugnant views plagiarised from conflict-ridden history are no less deserving of our concern, surely?
Consider this (and I am astonished to find myself agreeing with Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali): would you, in the name of tolerance, non-militance, and respect for all, allow the whole-scale killing or subjugation of the Iraquis? Yet God says, fairly explicitly, that when his armies conquer the enemy that (if they are from neighbouring lands) they should be killed unless, (if they are from far away lands which are not wanted by the victors for colonisation or settlement–yes this is in the bible, look it up, Deut: 10-17)they surrender, in which case, plunder and loot their stuff and make forced labourers of their people.
You and I may find this ridiculous, we may know many Christians and Jewish people who also find this ridiculous, but the fact of the matter is that this is the actual textual instruction.
Ms. Ali (again this hurts to say)is ultimately right when she says that religious “moderates” are, strictly speaking, wrong and/or mistaken. They are moderate only insofar as they distort (ignore, overlook, interpret, allegorise, etc.) the actual words, images and instructions found in the respective sacred texts. Those who are accurate, who are punctilious in their reading, who can point to different passages on actual pages and say, with triumph, “God Told me so!” are, in this respect, irrefutable. I say it again: the Fundamentalists, are right, as they have been saying to us all along. I do not mean that they are morally correct, but they are certainly textually and theologically correct. The rest of us who disagree with them must find different authorities to cite. We certainly cannot refute them using their own texts. Neither can their co-religionists, who, in the attempt to be “moderate” find themselves without a scriptural leg to stand on.
I am aware that none of this speaks to a spirituality which is not dogma-based. On that we completely agree.
Comment by Hakima — May 11, 2007 @ 10:04 am |
Dear Hakima,
First, thank you for such a thoughtful response. I really enjoyed reading your comments.
I absolutely agree with you that scriptural dogmatism is often contradictory to our conceptions of civil society. And indeed, the bible has more than its share of objectionable material.
Here are my concerns:
Militant atheism as espoused by Dawkins or Harris is of an intellectual variety at the moment. What I mean by militant is not that they want to kill the religious, but that they see an inevitable clash of the two (and they’d better get enough recruits on their side!). They see no room in civil society for all spectrums of religious and non-religious belief to coexist.
But what they are agitating for is some sort of a secular evangelism, if I understand their position properly. My question is: how do they intend to get the job done? What is the path to atheist utopia?
I am concerned by the violence of their opinions. In civil society, it is not proper or reasonable to attack your opponent by calling them stupid, blind, ignorant, or evil. You will not convince your opponent by assuring them that they are foolish and doing everything wrong in their lives, and promising them that you and only you have the TRUE PATH (atheism or faith). The force that accompanies this rhetoric is usually violent –Inquisition, colonization, etc.
As a historian-in-training, I am not interested in the veracity of religious beliefs, or the intellectual perfection of atheism (I have my doubts about all of the above). However, as bizarre as faith may seem to secular humanists, its power must be respected. By respect I do not mean agreement. One can respect a den of poisonous, irrational snakes without trying to take a nap in it.
Historically speaking, religion is a flexible thing. Should Christianity, Judaism, and Islam disappear, something else will pop up in their place. In this new religion, there will certainly be varieties of it that are fundamentalist and probably semi-violent.
Also, historically speaking, the 20th century was awash in militant atheism (Nazis, Pol Pot, Soviet Union, Mao Zedong). Perhaps the kind espoused by our current luminaries is not so explicitly violent, but it is not accurate to say that atheism is essentially an ideology of peace and prosperity for all (Dawkins and Harris think it is). Additionally, forcibly applied atheism will lead to bloodshed.
In our society, both the deeply religious and the deeply secular probably wouldn’t mind indoctrinating the opposite camp’s children, or just seeing their opponents “disappear.” This cannot and must not happen.
Religion, atheism, Marxism, secularism, scientism and various other isms are all ideologies created by humans to deal with a difficult world. The clash of inflexible ideologies leads to violence. For proof that martyrdom is available to the non-religious, consider Kamikaze pilots. They were ideological martyrs. IMO they are similar to Muslim suicide bombers in every way except for the Kamikazes were not religious and the Muslims were. They still both managed to kill a lot of people. No ideology is inherently peaceful.
Can you avoid ideology altogether? Certainly not. What we can do is work very VERY hard to make ideologies (including the ones that we espouse) less hell-bent on rending each other to pieces. Aside from murdering everyone who disagrees with us, that is what we MUST do. That is what democracy demands of us.
Comment by apricot — May 11, 2007 @ 12:47 pm |
Nazism was built on scientific calculation as much as on faith
- Feynman talks about the confusion between “thorrough” and “scientific”. It was a thorrough calculation but it was not scientific. Science has no inherent intention other than truth.
The atheist message is boring??
As opposed to “you are a filthy sinner, but Jesus loves you.”
HAHAHA!
And how the hell is “NOT teaching your children fairy tales” the same thing as “forced unbelief”?
This is a poorly written article that you haven’t given enough thought. Sorry.
Comment by SF — May 12, 2007 @ 6:05 am |
Dear SF,
I agree that the Nazis thought their ideology was “scientific.” It was equal parts faith and science. Or perhaps they had faith that their science was good.
What I mean by atheism as boring is that what these current atheists are saying is the same spiel as those of previous centuries (Ayer & the logical positivists, Russell, even the Marquis de Sade a little further back). What’s original about this current wave?
The fact is that people don’t think religion is fairy tales. You cannot prove this to them based on reason. Atheist critiques have been around for centuries, and have made only a small dent in the numbers of the faithful. Faith is based on faith, and that’s all there is to it.
I would encourage you to remember that I’m looking at this current fracas from a historical perspective. I don’t care if atheism is true, and I don’t care if religion is true. I have no interest in “ultimate truth” in this particular matter. I just want to avoid bloodshed.
If the secular try to take away the children of the religious, I guarantee bloodshed on an enormous scale.
I’m sorry if you disliked my article, but I’m sure there’s something on wordpress that’s more to your liking. Hurrah for the blogosphere!
Comment by apricot — May 12, 2007 @ 9:12 am |
I keep seing all these attacks on “The New Atheism” as if it’s the worst thing to have come around.. and I take it personally because at least for me – it DID make a big difference.
They automatically score one for the religious folk who believe they’re in some kind of holy war against Satanic Secularism, but the authors never try to even the balance by making articles against the absurdities/atrocities done daily in the name of faith.
No one tries to take away children from the religious folk, but awareness has to be raised regarding the little ones.
It only takes one person to say “no” to a habit in order to make those who practiced it on auto-pilot to wake up from that dream.
My less-religious friends no longer make the cross sign with their friends when they walk nearby churches, since I’ve raised awareness on that issue.
You look in the historical perspective, but history has never had the communication capabilities we have now.
Comment by SF — May 12, 2007 @ 2:02 pm |
As in most situations, a Simpsons quote is appropriate here: “The children! Won’t someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?!” — Helen Lovejoy
I wasn’t aware Sunday school was a form of child abuse. Maybe I should enter therapy to deal with the painful memory of playing with Noah’s Ark paper cutouts. What do you think, B?
Comment by Lindy — May 12, 2007 @ 2:35 pm |
I am pleased that it has affected your life positively, SF. More power to you! However, I would also point out that many people find religion a positive point in their lives–many people in AA, for instance, found religion helpful in helping them break their alcoholic addiction. I am all for people finding ideologies that work for them. There just should be no force on any side. No one should be forced to worship, or vice versa.
Yes, there are definitely atrocities in the name of faith. There were certainly atrocities in the name of atheism, too. And atrocities in the name of patriotism. And economics. And so on.
If humans can find a way to justify their atrocities, then they will. I do not think atheism is inherently immune to this kind of justification.
If these “New” Atheists want to prove the superiority of their ideas to these other -isms, then I expect them to not use the same rhetoric.
Lindy, what is it with church and paper cutouts?! Hahaha. Therapy for ALL. I actually enjoyed the crafts part of it. Although I left church with no regrets, I regard it as pretty innocuous in my life. In any case I think the bluster around religion as child abuse is overblown.
I think what we are all reacting against is EXTREMISM in all its forms–religious, atheistic, nationalistic or whatever. Rightly so.
Comment by apricot — May 12, 2007 @ 3:49 pm |
Well, you should know that teaching children they’re worthless sinner worms that have to feel guilty and ask for forgivness from Jeezas IS child abuse.
Just check these vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R71TsW0Wcs
Comment by SF — May 12, 2007 @ 4:11 pm |
Here are Dawkin’s thought on the TGD criticism: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece
I agree with him, why should religion be outside criticism?
Religion is allowed to say it’s “The Way, The Truth and The Life” for all the wrong reasons but atheists should stay silent and not say rationality beats irrationality? Why?
Comment by SF — May 13, 2007 @ 5:58 am |
Respectfully, SF, I think you’re attributing to Apricot a position she’s not advocating. She’s not saying that religion is above criticism or that atheists should be silent. Read this again:
“If you want to convince people to be atheists, go for it. That’s free speech. Atheists should definitely be allowed to send missionaries around to annoy people while they’re trying to have dinner. During said missions, it would be much more productive to talk to prospective converts with respect for their intelligence and integrity as human beings, and not to ridicule them and advocate the seizure of their children.”
In other words, atheists have the right to stand up for their beliefs and to explain why they think religion is bad. The problem with Dawkins, Harris, etc. is not that they’re atheists. It’s that they’re defending their position in a way that is unlikely to change any minds. Plenty of intelligent people — including scientists — believe in God, attend church/synagogue/a mosque, and can still think for themselves and carry on a rational conversation. These people are not going to listen to someone who says “if you believe in God you are STUPID, and you are ABUSING YOUR CHILDREN if you take them to see ‘Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.’” Apricot isn’t saying that Dawkins should not be allowed to talk; she’s saying he would be more convincing if he dialed it down a notch or twelve.
Comment by Lindy — May 13, 2007 @ 8:03 am |
Word, Lindy. Thank you. That’s exactly what I meant.
Comment by apricot — May 13, 2007 @ 8:53 am |
First, don’t forget that Dawkins is speaking out for “militant atheism”, not for “silent conversions”.
Is there any evidence you can offer that a “more moderate” approach would have better effects?
How would that even look like?
How much of an improvement would it make?
Would there even be an impact? (“I really respect your intelligence, but I believe your most cherished beliefs are wrong. Thanks for listening”).
Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have created controversy, they’re invited to speak, they “spread the good word” (LOL!).
Would a religiously correct promoter of atheism reach the same audience? Would he reach any audience at all? Would anyone really care what he has to say?
I think you’re afraid of the religious folk. You’d want dawkins to shush and keep it down so he won’t stir the hornet’s nest.
Norman Hall said it best in his article “The Secret of Scientism” (available on google search):
“it is no wonder that proponents of science would rather avoid it than confront it. Scott will be happy if she can just keep creationists from turning biology classrooms into worship services for intelligent design. And Pigliucci is right to worry that the public will resent science as it continues to undermine the pretended excuses that are given as public reasons for adhering to myths and prejudices from the ancient past.
But it must be confronted. Modern democracy was invented by the “gentleman scientists” of 18th century America, and embodies the scientific ethics of truth-telling and self-examination. Truth is always slippery, and we can never be sure, in science or in politics, whether we have found it. But in our modern world, adherence to the ethic of at least reporting faithfully what we do have reason to think is true, and why we think so, has become less important than building the convenient fictions that can produce a political will to action.
When it becomes possible and respectable for a world leader, when asked if his reasons for war were real or imagined, to answer, “Does it matter?” then we have entered extremely dangerous ethical territory. If we do not speak up for the efficacy of science, if we do not defend the value of doing our utmost to prevent our own self-deception, in all fields of endeavor, then we run not only the risk of rational science, but of democratic government disappearing in favor of whatever “truths” can reach ascendancy, riding on an emotional fervor for which neither religious nor political “belief” is the cause, but only a belated excuse.”
Also check this out on Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/we_aim_to_misbehave.php
“In response to this constant whining that loud-and-proud atheism ‘hurts the cause’, he brought up a historical parallel:
Here’s just one example. Do you realize that women used to march in the streets with placards demanding that they be allowed to vote? At the time the suffragettes were criticized for hurting the cause. Their radical stance was driving off the men who might have been sympathetic to women’s right to vote if only those women had stayed in their proper place.”
Comment by SF — May 13, 2007 @ 12:56 pm |
For a historical parallel, consider how fondly we generally tend to treat the civil rights movement of the 1960s…embracing the histories of nonviolent protest, while regarding the black power movement as more or less aberrant and frightening. Individuals in SNCC and the Black Panthers had many of the same goals, yet their legacies are certainly different, at least in the public memory.
Militancy does not result in mass conversions.
Comment by apricot — May 14, 2007 @ 10:22 am |