You listen to this, and could so easily see this ending in a pogrom. This idea that only a belief in Allah\Christ could convince someone to fly a plane into a building just strikes me as incredibly naive.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Yeah.
Yeah, the need to believe that absent God, there would be no violent fanatacism is simply not supported by history, or the basic principles of reason. People say it because they want to project how evolved they are. The fact of the matter is the most prolific mass murderers of the last century were Atheists. Mao? Stalin? Hitler (depending on who you ask)?
Perhaps we could go back a bit further into history and discuss the most prolific mass murderers in all of history. You know, the one that makes Hitler, Stalin, and Mao look like pikers. You need look no further than Vatican City.
That said, some people seem to think religion helps them. I find that weak, myself. And couldn't agree more with the statement that religion is stupid. But that's me.
I just wish all these people with their religion would just stay the hell away from me and out of my (and everyone else's) business. But they won't and that's why people like me will continue to push back. I find in rather amusing that the religious can never admit the blood on their hands and continue to assail atheists/agnostics/deists as evil and immoral. Doesn't sound much to me like people who are very secure in their beliefs. I don't think religionists are evil or immoral, for the most part. I do, however, find their hierarchies no less evil or immoral than the so-called atheists (there are philosophical arguments to be made that none of the monsters you reference are atheists, but saw themselves as creating a new religion through their cults of personality) you reference. In the case of the Catholic Church, in fact, the hierarchy is more evil and immoral than all three combined if you're going to make the judgment based on how many dead bodies they've piled up.
But you're not rebutting the argument being made. He's not saying that mass murderers are more likely to be atheists. He's just saying that the idea that violent fanatacism would not exist in the absence of religion is demonstrably false. And it is. It has nothing to do with whose religion is what, the fact of the matter is human beings will do terrible things to one another with or without religion to claim as a justification.
And as for the "none of those people were real atheists" argument, I really feel like you're just creating a no true scotsman fallacy where you can define away as non-atheistic anyone you would prefer not be counted among their number. Mao and Stalin did not believe in god or any organized religion. They were atheists.
Well, I'll agree with you in that humans themselves are simply monsters. But as an atheist, it's always these three that are trotted out as if to show that atheists are always the evilest of evil. And as for the idea that I'm showing a logical fallacy, there is quite a bit of scholarly literature that can show the parallels to religion of the cults of personality of these men. They simply replaced Jesus or Buddha or Confucius with themselves. Sort of exactly like Paul did when he replaced the Jewish god with Jesus. Just because it wasn't a religion recognizable to you doesn't mean it wasn't that very thing.
It's certainly true that violence would exist without religion. But that isn't really the question: the question is whether religion contributes (in the net) to violence.
That is, would you claim that the amount of fanatical violence in the world is a fixed constant, independent of ideology, such that if we remove one source of violence, some other form of violence necessarily increases, to maintain equilibrium? I see no reason to believe that that is true.
For instance, we know that violent fanaticism would exist, with or without the Aryan supremacist views of the Nazis--but does that imply that there is no point in combating or arguing against Nazism? I think it's likely that the world is better off--and less violent--with less Nazism. And it's at least theoretically possible that the world would also be better off, and potentially less violent, with less religion.
"But that isn't really the question: the question is whether religion contributes (in the net) to violence."
Since when did that become the question?
Beaker: you wrote, "...the need to believe that absent God, there would be no violent fanatacism is simply not supported by history".
But I don't think that anyone would claim that there could be no violent fanaticism without religion. The claim that Hitchens, Harris, et al. do make is that religion contributes to violent fanaticism--and particularly that it is a major source of violent fanaticism in the modern world.
If that is true, then we might reduce (though not eliminate) violent fanaticism by reducing religiosity.
Do you disagree?
The fact that violence might also have other, nonreligious sources only means that we should combat those sources as well (as, in the cases of Stalin and Hitler, we did)--not that we should refrain from working against religion.
kafir: What I wrote was in response to what TNC wrote: "This idea that only a belief in Allah\Christ could convince someone to fly a plane into a building just strikes me as incredibly naive."
He's right. I was agreeing with him. I used slightly different language, but the meaning was the same.
And for the record, I think a lot of people make the argument that religion is the main source of large scale atrocities. If not, there would be no reason to take offense, as some have, to the simple, irrefutable assertion that the greatest mass murderers in the history of history lived in the last century, and almost all of them were atheists.
But the assertion that violence would be greatly lessened (or lessened at all) if we abolished religion is itself an absurdity. What's certain is there would be a lot fewer people giving to charity.
To put my point another way: if someone criticizes the Nazis, no one counters with: "But look at how many more people were killed by Mao, who was a non-Nazi!". That would be an obvious non-sequitur.
Regardless of what Mao did, Nazism motivated violence, and it was reasonable to object to it.
And if Christianity or Islam motivates violence, it is likewise reasonable to criticize it--and it is equally a non-sequitur to say, "But look at the people killed by non-theists."
None of the major current atheist voices, so far as I know, would deny the atrocities committed under Mao or Stalin: they would object to Maoism, and Stalinism, and Islam, and Christianity. And there's nothing inconsistent about that position.
"But the assertion that violence would be greatly lessened (or lessened at all) if we abolished religion is itself an absurdity. What's certain is there would be a lot fewer people giving to charity."
Do you really find it ABSURD that violence would be lessened if religion were gone tomorrow? So you don't think that religion has contributed to violence at all in this world?
I should backtrack: what I object to, then, is what I see as TNC's unfair caricature of "movement" atheists. The atheists whose views I am aware of would agree that religious beliefs are not the only ideologies that can possibly lead to violence. Coates' original comment posits what seems to me to be an obvious straw-man.
Someone who did hold that only religion could lead to violence would be manifestly incorrect, as your examples show. I just don't know who those people are, and I don't think that (if they exist) they are representative of atheists--or even of the admittedly shrill, tasteless atheists featured on this NPR program.
However, many atheists would likely argue that:
A. Religious beliefs are among the beliefs most likely to lead people to fly into buildings, in the modern world. (This appears empirically to be true.)
B. Religious beliefs are among the most widespread of ideologies that contribute to violence,
-and-
C. Religious beliefs are often protected from criticism (by convention or by law) in ways that other such ideologies are not.
Hence, if you want to counter ideologies that lead to violence, religious beliefs are a reasonable place to focus your efforts. (Whereas campaigning against Stalinism would be whimsically anachronistic, at this point in history.)
"Do you really find it ABSURD that violence would be lessened if religion were gone tomorrow? So you don't think that religion has contributed to violence at all in this world?"
The NRA has a line for this kind of situation: guns don't kill people, people kill people. If the FSM made all the religions disappear tomorrow, there would be a brief period of lessened violence. This would last until people invented a new reason to justify the mass murder of their fellows. ("They're taking my resources!" is a good candidate).
stacy,
I absolutely believe that. Religion is, fundamentally a means of organization and a place where people find brotherhood and sense of commonality. I do not have religion, but I don’t dismiss the effect it has over people to recognize a shared humanity that transcends borders and ethnicities. I don’t dismiss the great (and quantifiable) contributions various organized religious groups provide in the form of charitable giving, medical aid, and any number of other obvious ways. I do not dismiss, as so many seem to, the hole that would open up if all of those outlets of giving and sharing were to disappear tomorrow. Nor do I think it’s very much of a stretch to imagine despair stepping up to fill that void. And from desperation, there will quite obviously come a greater amount of violence.
Now, if we’re talking about violence and how religion feeds fanaticism, you’ll have to forgive me if I think that’s a copout. Religion is a tool. People bent on regional, national, or global domination have long used it as a tool to those ends. It’s an effective tool. But it’s only a tool. There are other effective ones out there. Ask the Hutu. Ask the Khmer Rouge. Ask the Soviets. Ask the Nazis. Ask the Mongols. Ask the Greeks. We do not need a religion to justify the annihilation of our brothers and sisters. And history proves this out again and again and again. And everybody here knows this to be true. Even if we've had bad experiences with religion or religious people.
1. Nothing you said comes close to rebuking anything that I said.
2. Mao killed between 50 and 70 million people. Find me a Pope who's ordered the deaths of more living breathing people than Mao. Don't adjust for population growth. The Spanish Inquisition death toll is in the tens of thousands. Mao killed 50 to 70 million people! He likely killed more people than any five people in the history of the world.
3. The they're not real atheists argument is weak.
4. I'm not religious. Not by a longshot.
What do you mean by "Mao killed" 70 million people? Like, he deserved 70 million murder charges? Or is it simply that 70 million people died while he was in charge?
Well, I don't think the Spanish Inquisition is the only instance of the murder of scores of people for which the Catholic Church is responsible. In fact, I know that is not the only instance.
And if you think that only current and mainstream religions are "real" religions and others can't pop up that you may not recognize, then you don't know much about the emergence of religions across history.
Damn Yankees: I mean that he literally ordered the mass executions of millions of his countrymen. And I mean that he implemented policies that killed many million more.
BurghGirl: I didn't claim that the Spanish Inquisition was the only instance of the murder of scores of people by the Catholic Church. I do claim that Mao, in the period of a couple of decades, killed more people than every Pope put together. Probably two or three times over. To be fair, it was China, and he had what must have seemed like an endless supply of people to kill.
Again, this has nothing to do with whether atheists are good or bad. Or Catholics. Or anybody. It's simply a statistic that wipes clean the laughable argument that religion is the source of all fanaticism.
BreakerBaker:
When did Mao order the executions of million of people? Do you even know how most Chinese died during his time period?
The dude did bad things, but almost all of the deaths were caused by insane agricultural and social policies. They were not designed to kill anyone. They were just horribly, horribly misguided.
Mao was a terrible leader and dictator, but I always bristle at comparisons between him and Stalin/Hitler. They are not the same.
DamnYankees: Rather than quote at length, I guess I would just suggest that you go to the Mao Zedong Wikipedia page. If you want to refute the information therein, be my guest.
BreakerBaker, I don't necessarily disagree with your point, I'm just rather uncomfortable with your method of argument, which strikes me as dishonest.
You're sourcing the high end of Wikipedia's estimates on Mao... and those estimates are for deaths by famine, not execution. Then you're asking for a Pope 'ordering the deaths.'
Finally, a quick google scan gives me a European population estimate of 10-20 million at the highest in 1500, when the Pope actually had the power to do -- and did -- serious damage: ask the Bohemians.
In short the pope would have to exterminate (personally) the entire population of Europe three times over in order to compete against Mao. This may suggest that Mao was particularly bad, or talented. Or it may suggest that this kind of bean counting is pretty absurd.
BreakerBaker, I don't necessarily disagree with your point, I'm just rather uncomfortable with your method of argument, which strikes me as dishonest.
You're sourcing the high end of Wikipedia's estimates on Mao... and those estimates are for deaths by famine, not execution. Then you're asking for a Pope 'ordering the deaths.'
Finally, a quick google scan gives me a European population estimate of 60-80 million in 1500, when the Pope actually had the power to do -- and did -- serious damage: ask the Bohemians.
In short the pope would have to exterminate nearly the entire population of Europe (depending on whether the plague was stealing his victims or not) in order to compete against Mao. This may suggest that Mao was particularly bad, or talented. Or it may suggest that this kind of bean counting is pretty absurd.
Whoops... sorry for the near-double. Finally found a population number for Europe ca. 1550 -- the second post reflects actual (peer-reviewed) numbers.
I did say it was a quick google scan. :-/
Carrington,
I’m sorry I never saw your response to this until this morning. I don’t expect you to see my response at all. But in case you do: you’re right, the 50+ million includes deaths by famine associated with the Great Leap Forward. It also includes executions numbering in the millions (during the period when he was securing power), and countless enemies of the Party who were driven to suicide. Here’s a quote:
“Along with land reform, there were also campaigns of mass repression and public executions targeting alleged counter-revolutionaries (Zhen Fan), such as former Kuomintang officials, businessmen, former employees of Western companies, intellectuals whose loyalty was suspect, and significant numbers of rural gentry. The U.S. State department in 1976 estimated that there may have been a million killed in the land reform, 800,000 killed in the Zhen Fan campaign. Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 people were executed during the years 1949–53. However, because there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution", the number of deaths range between 2 million and 5 million. In addition, at least 1.5 million people were sent to "reform through labour" camps. Mao played a personal role in ordering these mass executions. He defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power.”
Now, even if we remove the tens of millions dead due to the policies of the Great Leap Forward (I don’t think we should, but for argument’s sake), we’re still left with a mass murderer who killed well over 20 times as many people as the Inquisition and the Crusades combined.
Now, you can make the argument that he had a lot more people at his disposal. That's unquestionably true. But that doesn't change the fact that it happened. And it happened recently. And it had nothing to do with religion or God. It had to do with a human desire to conquer and to dominate and to rule. Now, I'm obviously not defending the Crusades or the Inquistion, or the people blowing themselves up in Pakistan. I'm saying that religion is a net positive in the history of the world. It continues to be a net positive today. There are a lot of people who use religion to justify the terrible things they already want to do and say. The question has always been who is weilding religion and to what aims. It's the same way with any powerful idea. Religion doesn't corrupt people. People do.
There. I've said my piece.
"I just wish all these people with their religion would just stay the hell away from me and out of my (and everyone else's) business. But they won't and that's why people like me will continue to push back."
What exactly do you mean here? I hear that sort of sentiment all the time, but have never really grasped it. I've been atheist/agnostic my whole life. I spent the first 18 of those years living in a very rural community, the rest in a major city, but I literally cannot think of a time when my lack of beliefs has been a hardship, or even put me in an uncomfortable situation. Maybe you could count when my 7th grade biology teacher skipped the chapter on evolution, but all that meant was that I had the pleasure of learning about evolution from Dawkins (by the way, to anyone who doesn't like Dawkins's take on religion: do not let that turn you off from his science writing, it's fantastic).
I can't figure out if this alleged persecution of atheists is a southern thing, a suburban thing, a intra-family thing, or nothing more than an illusion promoted by people who can't take what they dish out. Maybe I've just been lucky?
I'm pretty sure she was referring to religion's impact on public policy, although I don't wish to speak for her.
I just bought 'The Greatest Show on Earth,' but haven't started it yet. I'm pretty pumped about it.
Speaking personally the pressure to believe is tremendous. I live in the south and I'm married to a religious fundamentalist who interprets the Bible literally. Yeah, the whole creation story, Noah's Ark -- go figure. Her family, not surprisingly, are all fundamentalists as well. I get the condescending looks and the offers of praying for me even though I've politely declined and explained that I am a non-believer. So to answer your question, in my case, it's both a southern thing and a intra-family thing.
Where is this oasis that you speak of? I'd like to move there.
Yes, extremist Marxism and National Socialism, like Islam and Christianity, have contributed to atrocities. But those philosophies are more-or-less dead: we defeated Hitler, and there's no longer much need to convince people to turn away from Stalinism.
Whereas religion is very much alive--hence it's reasonable for people concerned with violent fanaticism to focus on present dangers, rather than past ones.
But that doesn't mean other non-religious fanatical movements won't develop. The Khmer Rouge didn't kill as many as the Maoist movements did, but it was a staggering proportion of the population.
This is a red herring. I don't think anyone's made the actual point that there would be no violent fanaticism absent of God. Simply, that there would be far less due to religions' penchant for being such a good catalyst of fundamentalism and it being a process of actively subverting one's reason.
There's still many many other reasons people will go to war.
People flew planes into buildings because of religion. Stalin killed millions for power. Other wars will be fought for land or money or resources.
Even John Lennon told us to imagine no religion, but to imagine no countries as well.
And I find your Mao numbers dubious. More due to disastrous policy than actively seeking murder.
I don't agree with the New Atheists on much at all, but I do question whether one can characterize Mao, Stalin and Hitler as being the antithesis of the history's "religious" mass murderers. IMHO all three were extreme practitioners of ideologies so "faith-based" that it's very hard to distinguish their beliefs from those of religious fanatics. In all three cases they were involved in some "End of History" scheme that has more in common with Islamic or other "God" nuts than it does with Enlightenment thinking or rational skepticism. There's a great book by Karl Lowith - Meaning in History - that argues that no Western philosophy, including Marxism, has escaped the Christian paradigm in which all things move toward an ordained end. Mao and Stalin were the fundamentalist extremist branch of Marxism (Mao in particular) trying to push their understanding of the direction human events were ordained to follow via brutal politics and a totalitarian mindse. Hitler also was also promoting his "ideal" rooted in "racial perfection." This an ideological mode that is, in my opinion, indistinguishable from religious fundamentalism, and is antithetical to what is commonly perceived as liberal secularism. Mao was a lot more like bin Laden - and for that matter, more like various Popes and even the most strident of our own "Religious Right" - than he was like Clarence Darrow or Christopher Hitchens.
What these examples show is mostly that people have an affinity for ideology even in the absense of religion. It would be hard to find a secular humanist who belongs on this list.
But the problem with the new atheist argument is that in arguing that religion is the problem they need to show that if people were not religious in the conventional sense they would instead be secular humanists.
Part of the problem is that the people who fly planes into buildings are not people who come from cultures in which the alternatives are radical Islam and secular humanism. They come from a culture in which the background situation is one of occupation or a feeling of humiliation from the west, and so the likely alternative is more likely to be some kind of nationalism.
Similarly religious people in the countries where one can see secular humanism flourish tend not to be likely to fly planes into buildings. Of course many religious people in this country supported the idiotic invasion of Iraq and are willing to dehumanize the people living there. But then that holds for Hitchens as well.
If you are going to stand for reason, you should be better known for arguments based on reason rather than arguments based on mockery or pr techniques.
Well, I think those guys built pseudo-religious ideological structures to justify their murders. Whether the replacement deity is the Great Leader, the State, or a grilled cheese sandwich, you're looking more for whether the ideology is sufficiently totalizing to convince its followers that people who don't believe as they do are evil or otherwise not to be considered fully human.
That said, blaming religion is kind of silly. Religion is used to justify violence that was going to happen anyway for another reason anyway.
Yup. Heard this report in the car. It's especially amusing that the Atheist movement seems in the process of developing sects. This is what happens when a belief system gets organized - whether the tenet is around a particular kind of belief in God or the proper way to manifest belief in no God. Potato, Potatto.
It is just as much a leap of faith to assert that God certainly does not exist as to assert that He certainly does.
Exactly this.
No, it really isn't. You mistake atheism for a religion with talk of faith. Faith has nothing to do with it. It's about evidence. Religion has none. When it does, perhaps I'll change my mind.
(The Christian) Faith doesn't (usually) purport to rely on evidence.
That's my problem with the "evidence condition". If you need evidence, then you're not dealing with faith, you're dealing with some form of science.
The evidence condition is central to the entire idea of being an atheist. This is why this conflating atheists with religionists is ridiculous. They have no similarities. None. And to discuss them as if they do is ridiculous.
The evidence condition is not essential to being an atheist. And as the number of atheists increase there will also be a natural increase in the number of atheists who are atheists because their parents were and so they never took religion seriously. I suspect that many, if not most, of the atheists under communism accepted their atheism on authority. And probably most of the atheists of the last 100 years were atheists under communism.
The attitude of religion towards reason has tended to vary. Before 1600 or so belief in God fit very well with science, and religion pushed the idea of religion through reason. Since then science has been somewhat at odds with religion, religions have tended to rely more heavily on faith.
In practice there are still great differences between why most people in the US atheists accept their atheism and why most religious people accept their religion. But this is a matter for evidence, not for a priori dismissals. (At least if one is defending ones position as being founded on evidence).
Um. Actually, it does. 'God does not exist' is a belief. There's no more evidence in favor than there is against. If you believe there is no God (which can be distinguished from simply not believing in God), then you are acting on faith.
BreakerBaker, do you believe that there are a million non-corporeal invisible unicorns in between you and your computer right now? If not, you are an a-unicornist, which is exactly the same as being a unicornist.
A lack of belief in something unverifiable is not the same thing as belief in the unverifiable.
There is no evidence in favor. Isn't the burden of proof on the shoulders of the people making the unsupported claim?
You mistake atheism for what Hitchens and Dawkins espouse. Perhaps they say "God does not exist." That's not what I say. I say there is no evidence that a god exists. Perhaps there is one; perhaps there isn't. Either way, it really doesn't matter much to me. It is not relevant to my life in any way. So why bother about it? If some evidence should come along that proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is a god, I will certainly accept that. Until then, there is no utility in the concept for my life.
Look, I do not believe in God. I simply understand the difference between that and saying uneqivocally that there is no God. The truth is, I simply don't know. I think it's unlikely. But I still don't know. Yes, there could be unicorns, but I don't see any reason to allow belief or disbelief in what I consider to be such a remote possibility to define me one way or the other. There may be a God. Probably not. So what?
BurghGirl: For the record, I do not mistake atheism for any one thing. I was speaking directly with regard to tcrosse’s statement about a leap of faith required for certainty. You responded, that a leap of faith is not required for certainty, I responded that it is. Was it all that complicated? I didn't think so.
I know that atheism can be defined broadly or narrowly. Not for nothing, though, for somebody who seems to think you can define it so broadly as to allow for as many definitions as there are atheists, you sure seem to be quick to kick people out of the camp. The camp that doesn’t exist, I mean. ;)
Elvis Elvisberg,
I spent a lot of time in a recent thread criticizing use of Flying Spaghetti Monster arguments, and invisible unicorn arguments have to count as the same type. But you are using the argument in the one situation in which it works well. So thank you for illustrating a point I was making back then.
I think that one of us needs to go re-read some Hume (it could certainly be me if I'm mis-stating his argument). Really, science's explanatory power only works because we all more or less agree on what counts as scientific evidence and methods. We can never know with 100% certainty that anything will occur.
Then again, I'd argue, like Tillich, that the only true atheists are nihilists. Otherwise, everyone has some [i]theos[/i] that they place their confidence or ultimate concern in. It doesn't have to be a capital-Theta [i]Theos[/i] like you'd have in a religion. Even Camus had something that got him out of bed in the morning.
Science explanatory power works because we can predict things with it. Not because we "agree on what counts as scientific evidence and methods." Once you get a Theory, like Evolution, or Quantum Mechanics, you can make excellent predictions about what you are going to find and see. So if we can't be really sure that anything is going to happen 100% of the time but we can be sure that it will will happen almost every time, it is way better than predictions or prayers that happen at no better than chance.
So you take a leap of faith when you assert that you don't believe in X? Or does it only apply when X = "god"?
There's a clear difference between not believing in X and believing there is not X. Replace X with God, and you have two different but no less definitions of atheism.
Right. But every time we have this conversation, atheists are painted as people who are claiming with 100% certainty that there is no god. That certainly helps people who want to claim that atheism is a religion and all atheists are assholes. But that doesn't mean it is accurate.
Now, if we're going to get technical, atheism and agnosticism are connected, but different concepts. What a lot of people here want to describe as a reasonable sense of atheism (myself included) actually falls closer to agnosticism than it does to atheism, which literally is about a belief that there is no God. If we want to expand it, as I sometimes do, it's about a disbelief in God, which allows for a little bit of intellectual wiggle room. Still, fundamentally, atheism is about a rejection of the belief in the Divine or the supernatural. The fact of the matter is that it's difficult to walk that line, to take on that title, and not come off like a dick. It just is. Particularly when you (not you) use it to attack the people of the world who have faith. No, many of them do not have a high opinion of atheists, but that doesn't mean they're responsible for all of the problems of the world. That doesn't mean the world would be a better place if they would all wise up and realize there's no such thing as Heaven or Hell. Or reincarnation. Or Nirvana. In fact, I do not question for a moment that the world would be a much worse place today if people stopped believing tomorrow.
How is this salient to the discussion at hand? Stop trolling.
Absolutely not. That is a preposterous assertion. Is it a leap of faith to say that Peter Pan does not exist? or Santa Claus does not exist? The natural state of reason is one of skepticism until observed otherwise.
So far the only evidence of any sort of god is books of fairy tales.
Lack of belief is not a belief.
Lack of belief is not a belief. True. But belief in a lack is.
Why is NPR framing this as if atheism is somehow organized? We aren't. We don't have churches or prelates or holy books, so why is there such a thing as old guard or new guard? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. If there is anything I know about atheists, it's that we aren't followers of anyone, not even each other. There are no "new" atheists or "old guard."
Agreed.
Agreed, but I think they mean the atheist commentariat now features more aggressive Everyone Who Doesn't Agree With Me Is Stupid atheists, and they're drowning out the quasi-Unitarian, divinity school, let's all get along atheist commentariat in public circles. Not that this is confined to atheism, or religion.
I was thinking the same thing when I heard the report. Granted I'm more agnostic than atheist but this is far more about a small organization of atheists rather than the whole population.
The day after I came across this NPR report, there was "no god" day on Twitter. There was a large group of atheists committed to making sure that "no god" was number one on the trending list. I have friends who were taking part in this, and so I saw plenty of these "no god" posts.
The reason I bring this up is because, among these Twitter users, at least, there did seem to be a concerted effort to band together as a group of some sort. And there were plenty of posts that argued believers were either stupid or cruel. But there were also people who simply advocated their stance - that they didn't need to believe in a god to be someone who wanted to make the world a better and more peaceful place. Still, the primary message, stated succinctly in the hashtag "no god," seemed to be a claim that there is, in fact, no god. Perhaps there isn't, but this phenomenon, no matter how silly it might seem, suggested to me that there is a desire among some atheists at least to form a more coherent group with, if not a dogma, then at least a core group of beliefs.
I am not an atheist -- I don't know what I am -- but I do think it must be tough to be an atheist in a society proud of displaying religious beliefs publicly. I suppose that is, in part, what motivated the Twitter day (gotta love social media tools). While it may be an overstatement on Barbara Bradley Haggerty (NPR reporter)'s part to claim a "bitter rift" among atheists, there does seem to be a trend (or perhaps it's only a Twitter trend?) towards organization.
Still, the primary message, stated succinctly in the hashtag "no god," seemed to be a claim that there is, in fact, no god.
Then again, it's Twitter. "I see no evidence for any gods, so I don't believe in any, but I am always open to new evidence" is too long for a hashtag.
True, but that doesn't negate the point that a bunch of people gathered together under a single banner (even if it's a Twitter hashtag banner), suggesting that there is more of a movement or group mentality in atheism than some would like to admit. That's not a bad thing. Just saying.
But I have to admit that it was rather funny to me that anyone would want to discuss philosophy on Twitter because, as you point out, it's not a place for nuance.
Well, there are a lot of atheist organizations. Just because you're not a member doesn't mean they don't exist.
This is a really silly report. All the report is saying is that, like in any social movement, there is a camp of accomodation and a camp of hardliners. It's the exact same discussion which takes place among every social movement - gay rights, civil rights, pro-tax cuts, anything.
It is simply nonsense to use the word "schism" in this context. All it is doing is throwing out a dog whistle trying to equate religion and atheism. There's no doctrinal split in atheism. There's no war, no sectarianism. There's just a disagreement as to what the most effective and desireable actions should be taken. To call this a "schism" is like calling the recent attempt of the Vatican to reclaim the Anglicans a religious "anchluss". The label is nothing more than an appeal to irrelevant emotions.
I agree with this. The report is quite sensational. Hitchens, while I agree with much of the substance of what he says, is a hardliner obviously. The soundbites from him in particular added to the illusion that there is some "schism".
Athiesm aside, one can have stupid dogmatic beliefs even if one thinks god is an illusion.
But that's not really the core of the modern atheist movement. They're not just atheists, they're rational skeptics. I do have a hard time believing that rational skepticism is a mindset that makes it likely for one to commit violent terrorist acts.
I'm not partial to the "new atheism says religion is stupid" claim either. Yes, there are atheists who punch back after centuries of abuse from the religious establishment. What people who get upset about atheists punching back really want are passive atheists who'll shut the hell up after centuries of abuse, exclusion and persecution that's still ongoing to this very day.
That said, Hitchens is a dick.
Thank you. I think this is my favorite comment on this thread so far.
I think we can all agree on Hitchens being a dick.
He may be a dick, but at least he's a great dick.
The quote from Hitchens that was used in the NPR piece actually comes from a debate that was held in Canada. He was arguing against a Canadian law that protects religious people from being insulted. You should listen to it. I think it's the best presentation I've ever heard Hitchens give.
Oh, yeah, his writing can blow me away. His case for returning the Elgin Marbles is a thing of beauty.
Unfortunately his writing also helped blow several hundred thousand Iraqis away...
I'm an agnostic, and I really can't say I'm feeling put upon after centuries of abuse. Even when living under a state religion--which isn't an issue most places, most times--agnostics and atheists have always had the option of insincerely practicing a faith, or joining the surprising number of people who just don't practice but don't make a big public deal of it. it's the people who want to actively practice a banned faith who get burnt or fed to lions.
Not to defend the Spanish Inquisition, but I really can't say it's made my nonbelieving life any tougher.
As for rational skepticism, we subscribed to Sceptic for a year back in the 90s and it was just so damned humorless. I still remember the bit on Chinese traditional medicine which focused, not on blind trials of some of the treatments, but on the lack of scientific proof of the existence of chi. And the following letters from some doctors working in China who allowed as how the local western hospital, unable to afford modern sterilization, made them a hell of a lot more nervous than the traditional healers.
You're talking more about individual rights, though, Deborah. I would argue that, say, anti-evolution forces have done a lot of damage to American education. (And think about the ridiculous 'has Obama joined a church yet?' articles.) It's more insidious than feeding people to the lions.
Agreed. The fault lies not in our god(s), but in ourselves.
An anti-religious push of this sort is just as wrong-headed as the Crusades were. These people are doing many of the things they condemn. The lack of self-awareness is impressive.
I understand pushing back against people trying to dictate how you should live your life. But the lack of respect for other people's beliefs is unnecessary and contrary to the Constitution.
These people are doing many of the things they condemn.
Like what?
As wrong-headed as the crusades? How many people have died from this again?
And how is that contrary to the Constitution exactly? I never realized the Constitution governed the amount of respect a private citizen must have for his fellow citizen.
To your Constitution point. I apologize for not being clear. My point is that any push to get rid of religion wholesale (I'm pretty sure I heard someone interviewed indicate that this was a goal of at least part of the atheist movement, if not, ignore this) runs counter to the principle of respecting people's rights to believe what they want to. The principle manifest itself in the 1st Amendment. I didn't mean to intimate that this is more out of line then any religion trying to impose its dictates on other people.
To your first point, I didn't say anything about the lethality of this push. But point taken, the Crusades are a bad example. Why don't we swap in rabid proseltyzing (sp) of the uninterested.
Well, thank you. That's much clearer. I still disagree vehemently. But your point makes a lot more sense now.
I just want to touch on the Constitution thing one last time and then I have to go. The point of the First Amendment is that government may not infringe upon some one's right to practice their own religion. Private citizens trying to remove what they see as a harmful element of their society is a totally different matter.
That said, I can only really speak for myself, but I think I speak to most other atheists (although, maybe not. who really knows?) when I say that wanting there to be no religion is very different from trying to force people to ... well, not believe. I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I still would like for there to be no religion. And will continue to speak my mind on these point hoping others will change their mind, but not trying to convert by any means. And hoping that in the end I will see the end to religion. Like I said, that's just me. But from my experience it speaks to many others.
A lack of respect for other beliefs isn't contrary to the Constitution at all. There are all sorts of beliefs I don't respect. I suppose I have to respect your right to believer whatever you want, but that's hardly the same thing.
See above. I think I was clearer. I shouldn't comment and work at the same time.
No, I'm with you. Speaking of not commenting while working, just look at all my typos...
Isn't this a matter of how different atheists want to see themselves portrayed? In any group there is an arguement in methods. One type has to keep it real, so it will call it as they see it and don't care whose toes are stepped on, whose feelings are hurt, or who is offended.
The other side thinks these kinds of people are a-holes who do harm to the group with their arrogance and smugness. This side might be Neville Chamberlinish at times, but other times, they are the most effective advocate in the long run.
Doesn't matter what the group is, it seems to cut across religion, groups, businesses, political entities.
I must continue to push back against the argument that there actually IS a group. There isn't. I've never met another atheist that thinks of it the same as I do. And among atheists, that is generally a good thing because we obviously don't WANT to be a part of a group.
Insofar as your focus is to point out where the rest of humanity goes astray, you are a single, defined and, yes, unified group.
You don't like this? Well then, go ahead and make your atheism about something, not against something...
But a lot of atheists don't want to "point out where the rest of humanity goes astray." They just don't believe in God. They want to live their lives without people bitching about them not being moral, or having a belief that's insufficiently 'about something,' whatever the hell that means. Not everyone is Hitchens or even Dawkins.
BurghGirl's point is that atheism, by one definition at least, is inherently not about something: it's a class defined only by non-membership, like "gentile", or "non-white". The fact that BurghGirl and Richard Dawkins are both not theists makes them a part of the same group only in the trivial sense that Hitler and Ghandi were both part of the group of people who are not Jews. This does not mean that they share anything substantive in common.
(Likewise, Thomas Jefferson and the Marquis de Sade were both members of the group, "people who did not drive Toyotas." One could go on endlessly in this vein.)
That said, the sort of people who go gatherings of atheists and speak publicly against religion can be considered members of a distinct group, as people who are actively opposed to religion. Atheist activists do constitute a meaningful, somewhat unified group, even as non-theists as such do not.
"You don't like this? Well then, go ahead and make your atheism about something, not against something..."
No, that would do the exact OPPOSITE of what BurghGirl is talking about. Some atheists like to that tell everyone how much they hate all religion. Some don't. That doesn't mean that atheists are a 'group,' anymore than any people that share a particular opinion. And if that's all we're talking about, then the idea that a 'group' holds any special meaning is ridiculous.
(For the record, disliking organized religion does not, in itself, make you a dick.)
Atheists claim there are groups.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=atheist+groups&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701
You don't need a leader or a signed membership card to be part of a group.
There are groups, but they are pretty necessary, unfortunately. I wouldn't join them. But still, there has to be some sort of lobby against Christianism in our laws and politics.
I do not believe in God. It is people's right to believe that religion is wrong, promotes ignorance, etc., and their right to say so loudly and publicly. I think some atheists overstate their case about the harmful aspects of religion, but there is always a plethora of views almost no matter what the issue.
Having said that, I think some of the 'new atheists' are intellectually dishonest. Every individual atheist I have ever met never failed to point out, repeatedly, that the First Amendment prohibits the government establishment of religion. Yet some of these very same people--you could call them 'new atheists', I guess--would conveniently forget the part of the Amendment that says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, either. Just as these atheists resented what they deemed to be (indirect) government support for the practice of religion, they were enthused by various ideas for using state power to "de-faith" society. You can't have it both ways.
Second, it seems to me that many 'new atheists' are less anti-faith than they are anti-Western faith. They are not equal-opportunity religion-haters. Hitchens and Dawkins are exceptions, but many atheists who do not hesitate to loudly condemn Christianity and (to a lesser extent) Judaism, lower the volume about Islam, Hindu, Vodun, Buddhism, etc., or ignore them entirely. I guess some of this has to do with the fact that Judeo-Christian beliefs are the cultural norm around here, but still. Putting up derogatory paintings of Jesus doesn't take much courage, or make you edgy. Call me when you start treating Mohammed, Shiva, Baron Samedi, and Buddha the same way.
Well, I personally have equal disdain for them all while retaining admiration for some of the beautiful things believers of all of them have created. I guess I just wish they'd return the courtesy.
"I guess I just wish they'd return the courtesy."
This is an understandable feeling, but I think when it comes to atheism and religious belief it is very easy to generalize. Just as there is no monolithic atheist message of hostility toward religion, there is also no monolithic religious message of hostility toward atheists, either.
I just wonder if part of the "loudly condemning Christianity" has to do with most Christian denominations being charged with preaching to the unconverted. I have had Christians knock on my door and hand flyers to me on the streets, and get in my face about my beliefs, but I've never had that happen with Buddists or Jews or Hindus, etc. (Not that I personally am going to condemn anyone regarding their personal beliefs, just that I can see the reason why someone loud in their own beliefs might single out Christians over other religions.)
It's also, I think, because most of the 'new atheists' are Western and therefore are more familiar with Christianity and to a lesser extent Islam. Buddhism has never been a prominent political force in America or Western Europe, but the Catholic Church sure has.
The thing that I find most rewarding about being an atheist is that it does not require evangelism (no one will go to hell if I don't convert them). This is why I find this new atheism so annoying, they are abandoning the one element of atheism that sets it apart from most other religions. I think atheists should be confident enough in their beliefs to lay back a little, leave foundation religious belief alone, and go after the insidious side effects of fanaticism.
Ummm, that's what they're doing. Hitchens like to quote Freud's work explaining why religion is ineradicable. Dan Dennett argues that religion should be taught in schools because diversity would reduce fundamentalism. (See his presentation at TED here.) Sam Harris tries to de-convert moderates because he thinks they give intellectual cover to fundamentalists by accepting many of their premises, but fundamentalists are his target.
Haven't listened to the NPR report b/c I'm at work, but I agree with what you say here. People are irrational. We just are. People can find excuses to justify doing almost anything. Although, religion is obviously a powerful tool that can be used to influence people. It's just as ridiculous as saying that only Christians are capable of great acts of kindness and sacrifice(for all the evil done in the name of God, there has been an awful lot of good done as well).
"This idea that only a belief in Allah\Christ could convince someone to fly a plane into a building just strikes me as incredibly naive."
Who has ever said ONLY?
/agree
I dunno. This all seems pretty silly. I've self-identified as "atheist" for as long as I've thought seriously about metaphysics and I can't say that I've ever found "atheism" to be a clarion call that's easy to rally around. It's a very nebulous term that attracts an idiosyncratic group of self-identifiers who define the term very differently. By its very nature it resists the sort of community building that religion is so adept at. Perhaps that leaves us atheists the poorer for it.
The way I would define atheism is "It is not the case that I currently believe in a god/gods/higher power/etc." Some call this "weak atheism" or "agnosticism" or what have you. I just call it atheism. This is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair color. Granted, there is a subset of atheism (I'd call this "strong atheism") that would strengthen the previous statement to "I deny the existence of any god/gods/higher power/etc." Granted this is a stronger claim. Some would say strong atheism goes out on as far a limb as most faiths do. I'm not sure that I agree, but it's fair to say that strong atheism does require some amount of "faith" (that is, it's not possible to perfectly defend empirically). Regardless, virtually everyone I know who doesn't strongly identify with a particular religion doesn't much care what most people practice as long as they keep their business to themselves. It irritates me that God is on our money and that even though I'm as loyal an American as any, I'm apparently not as American as someone swearing fealty to god when I say the pledge because someone in power wanted to separate us god-fearing folk from the godless pinko-commies. But I don't see this throng of atheists bitching about it or warring against Christmas or what have you. I'll have me as merry a Christmas (goose included) as any Christian thank you very much.
I think it's pretty rich that people are talking about an "atheist movement." When is the last time you've seen an atheist rally? How many atheists do we elect to office? How many atheist community groups similar to churches do you see on a daily basis? I have to admit, I find that being an atheist in America lends you to be immediately distrusted. There isn't ANY sort of overarching system we conform to. We have less in common with each other than even religious wingnuts have with sane practitioners in their own community because there is no governing body that even claims to say "this is what atheism is." Dawkins and Hitch do not a movement of "new atheists" make.
In any case, all this is a huge turn-off to me. It's pretty easy to dog atheists in America. You're not going to get a bunch of people saying "We live among you just like everyone else! You have atheist friends, parents, siblings, lovers, etc." All you get is Dawkins, Hitch, maybe a few other weirdos on TV putting vaginas on Jesus's mouth, people cluck-clucking about how intolerant the atheists are, someone bringing up Mao and Stalin, and calling it a day. Tocqueville's travel partner wrote:
"There is not, in the United States, either a state religion or a religion declared to be that of a majority, or a predominance of one religion over another. The state remains aloof from all religions. Yet no one in the United States believes that a man without religion can be an honest man."
I believe it's still true today.
This is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair color.
Hahah, beautiful.
I invite you to read (or re-read) Genesis 22: wherein Abraham, by God, is tested/tempted/proved, in the request to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Whilst you are reading this text, keep in mind the places to which faith has driven some (like flying planes into buildings) and you'll begin to see it as a cautionary tale... God doesn't need to know how Abraham will react, nor does Abraham. But you do. I do. All who would read these texts do need to know that we can be led, by faith, to darker places. There, at the beginning of the religion(s), is explicit demonstration of what faith can lead to...
What's most funny about atheists is when they act like they suddenly discovered this all on their own.
That isn't a very insightful or honest reading of the binding of Isaac. Check out Kierkegaard's [i]Fear and Trembling[/i] or Derrida's [i]The Gift of Death[/i] for more earnest attempts at unpacking just what is going on in the story.
This isn't to say that faith can't be dangerous, but the reason that the story of Abraham is central to three major religions is not as some kind of cautionary tale. It is more about the compulsion to respond to the gift you've been given, to make an account of oneself.
Here's a tip: when you start off with insults and cutting down, it's usually a sign that you're arguments aren't very strong...
...and you don't disappoint. Sigh. Philosophers have a long history of obfuscation and c+ philosophy students have a long history of mistaking obfuscation for 'earnest unpacking.'
And, while I don't know from Derrida, you've chosen the Kierkegaard treatise that specifically notes a complete inability to understand Abraham and his motives. Perhaps you should re-read it... And, while I don't profess to understand Abrahams motives, my point is that God does...
...and that atheists shouldn't act like they're the first to catch on to the fact that humans have a feckless side.
It wasn't really intended to be an ad hominem (though you also seem to succumb to the temptation...what does that say for your argument?), more that the story of Abraham and Isaac has a lot more going on than your argument suggested AND that I've never heard of it being used as a cautionary tale in any of the three faiths that tell its story. Which suggests to me that you've either misread it or at least need to do a little more work explaining what you're trying to do. Sorry if I've offended your sensibilities, but you've seemed to miss the point.
Nothing in Fear and Trembling suggests a cautionary tale and it is more about how faith asks the impossible and the ensuing response. If a gift is something which cannot be repaid, then what is Abraham to do but offer up what is most precious to him in response? That's not feckless in the least. It is heartbreaking and terrifying, but Abraham isn't revered for being incompetent.
The real issue is that yes, there are all kinds of stories of dogma run amok and people forgetting that a key part of faith isn't certainty but doubt. Existential doubt and the humility that should inspire. But the story of Abraham and Isaac isn't one. I'll agree with you about human nature, but this isn't a good example.
I've nowhere suggested that the story be limited to or by this interpretation nor that it, or any tale, is unable to provide layers and/or dimensions beyond the actual collection of words. .
If the first thing you reach for, in defense of your view of these three faiths, is Kierkegaard and Derrida, then I wouldn't assume that you've heard much at all. I would suggest you read up on Maimonides, if you're really interested.
I only suggested re-reading Genesis 22 with extreme acts of faith in mind. Gives an entirely new dimension to the story (in addition to the dimensions it already has, I hasten to add, if only to be certain that you don't misunderstand...). Or you can wad up Kierkegaard and Derrida and make spitballs of 'em. Makes little difference to me.
The reasons why people do things are very complicated and religion can sometimes promote fanaticism and evil. That said, suicide attacks aren't one of Christianity's problems historically or currently. I know this isn't TNC's point, but still.
While I don't know any athiests who flat out deny the possibility that our universe might have been created by a 'god' (whatever that might mean), they will say that at the moment, there is no reason to think this was the case. What athiests are certain of is that gods as described by the world's religions, past and present, don't exist. This isn't a statement of faith, in the same way that it isn't faith when I say ghosts aren't real.
I will agree that most of the prominent atheists out there overstate the dangers of religion, much the same way proponents overstate its importance.
Great post.
The world has already witnessed violent non-religious fanaticism in the form of Communist terrorist organizations. Anybody remember Baader-Meinhof? Shining Path? FARC? It seems to me that political ideology is nearly if not exactly as capable of inspiring violence as religion
I would say more so. Take Al-Queda for instance. Clearly a religous terrorist group right? But they do not attack religous targets like churches, they attack political targets in attacks designed to ahcieve political goals. Islam is a common bond for them, but their group is political FAR more than religous. People do things in service to goals. Religion is not a goal, it is a motivation.
Exactly
Pogrom? I think that might be overstating things a bit!
I do see the similarities between some fundamentalists' absolute certainty that their beliefs are the only beliefs (and everyone else can just burn in hell!) and some atheists' absolute certainty that all believers are intellectually weak hypocrites who support sexist, racist, homophobic institutions (i.e., all organized religions; that's the view I hear from a friend of mine, and yes, somehow we are still friends).
That kind of certainty scares me -- and it certainly is part of the reason pogroms and other massacres occur. But it's not the only or even main reason, and to claim, based on Barbara Bradley Hagerty's somewhat scanty and sensationalized report, that atheists' attitudes could "end in pogrom" as you put it, TNC, strikes me as an overreaction.
I say this, btw, as someone who is not an atheist or a firm believer. Just a confused doubter. :)
Mr. Coates, I wonder if you've spent any time studying atheism in the culture at large? It seems to me that if you had, you'd have recognized the NPR piece as a bit of highly biased and slipshod reporting.
Of course it's possible for atheists to be violent or crazy -- we're human beings like anybody else. And it's true that sharp differences of opinion exist within the atheist-agnostic-skeptical-humanist-etc. community about how to think and how to be and how to argue and how to organize and which agenda is more important than another. But then atheists are human beings just like anybody else.
So leaping from that NPR piece to a generalized Fear of An Atheist Pogrom makes about as much sense as observing that Andrew Sullivan likes to make fun of Scientologists and then concluding that Anglo-American journalists are an organized faction that might at any minute storm Tom Cruise's house with torches and pitchforks.
It's just silly.
I deny the idea that religion promotes violence. Religion provides a moral language that can be used to justify violence. Violent action is the result of people reacting to trauma and trying to control other people.
However, as discussed before, violence can be justified in other moral frame works as well.
New Atheism is just revanchist anticlericalism. Anticlericalism in any tradition is about reaction against power structures in the name of truth and freedom. The problem is that it, like anything else, can be used to provide a frame work that justifies violent action, as well as dickishness.
The basis of morality in many of the great traditions coming out of the Axial Age (Great book by Karen Armstrong BTW) can be broken down to the golden rule, that is, less violence, less dickishness, because you hate it when other people do those things to you.
I will not have it said that "atheism is a belief." It is not a belief any more than someone who does not believe in communism or who lacks the belief in an afterlife possesses those beliefs negatively. Belief is an affirmation. One would never call someone who does not think fairies exists an "afairiest." Just think about it. It is absurd.
Now, let us be clear about one more thing. To lack the belief in God does not make one necessarily opposed to religion. One can even believe in God and still think religion is stupid and dangerous. In my view, it is the attempt by the "New Atheists" to place religion on the same level of analytical rigor that we have for anything else that leads people to oppose religion, whether Christianity or Islam to name a few.
Further, TNC misquoted Christopher Hitchens as the blogger dismissed the idea that religion led people to execute the attacks on September 11. Hitchens never said that only religion can lead to fanaticism. Hitchens merely understands that Muhammad Atta et al WERE doing it because they thought they would be rewarded in heaven for following God's mandates on Earth.
But I do think that some of the conduct by freethinking rationalists these days is ridiculous and childish and does begin to mirror the behavior or religionists. I think that creative ridicule of religion should be done in a way that is both strong and thoughtful. I like the idea of Jesus Christ bleeding into a wine bottle, but the playful idea that hair dryers can bestow logic and reason onto someone blurs the lines and is just kind of stupid and creepy.
There are a couple of problems here. First, one can have an affirmative belief that something does not exist. That is different from not having a belief with regard to whether something exists either because one has not thought about it, or because one has thought about it but feel the issue is to balanced to come down on either side. But atheism seems to best fit the case in which one has an affirmative belief that God does not exist. The last case is clearly agnosticism, the other case would seem to be best called indifference.
Whether there is a word for something does not turn on issues like whether it is an affirmative belief or not, it turns on whether there is a utility to having a word for something. In a world in which there were a lot of arguments about whether fairies existed and importance was placed on whether people believed they existed or not (either by the believers or non-believers) there would be a word for it. I don't know if the word would be "afairiest."
Also Hitchens does not actually know that Atta was doing what he did because he thought he would be rewarded in heaven. The Tamil Tigers, who originated a lot of the suicide bombing techniques, are not particularly religious but they believed suicide bombing to be an effective technique for their real world objectives. It would not be surprising if Atta believed something similar. The assurance that he was after the virgins does not seem to be based on evidence.
I am with you though about the fact that lack of belief does not need to make one anti-religious.
Lon, I think my problem with attaching the description of belief to atheism is that it lowers the standard of proof in the eyes of many that God exists, because it creates the illusion that theism and atheism are on the same plane of thought. They are not on the same plane of thought. For example, atheism does not require one to ascribe veracity to miracles, or to virgin births, or to angels that can recite entire holy books to an illiterate Arab. Atheism carries with it no baggage other than the doubt of such things. It is saying these things are probably absurdly not true and that you have vastly more reliable facts and ideas to focus on.
I agree that there is a lack of direct evidence that Atta and the gang were thinking they would go to heaven after being martyred on September 11, but they were strong fundamentalist Muslims who did believe in the Islamic teaching that those that die defending Islam will immediately ascend to heaven, and that they interpreted their attack as defending Islam. Just connect the circumstantial evidence.
Your point seems to be that atheism is not a belief system rather than that it is not a belief. But in general if one believes ones beliefs are more reasonable than the alternative (not a bad thing to believe) than one should do so on the basis of defending ones beliefs rather than trying to classify things so that ones beliefs are less in need of defending.
As for Atta, I seem to remember reading that some of those strong fundamentalist Muslims were going to strip clubs before the attack. Now maybe they were just impatient, or maybe they weren't as convinced as all that that they had their virgins waiting for them, or maybe they were just not as committed to all of the teachings of Islam as all that.
The only serious study on the subject concludes that being muslim is less a factor in suicide bombings than are other factors. There have been female suicide bombers, and non-religious suicide bombers. If one has an argument which explains why suicide bombing is a problem special to Islam when it turns out that suicide bombing is not special to Islam, then ones argument has a problem.
Atheists tend to give as one of the virtues of atheism that it is a view based on reason. And yet atheists seem as capable of anyone else of using ridicule instead of reason using arguments that only work in one situation as if they worked in other situations without noticing they no longer work and in general showing as much capability as anyone else in failing to use reason.
It is possible that the motivation of religious people is not always what their pure doctrine says it should be either.
In trying to make a case that is important for many reasons, like understanding what motivates muslim suicide bombers, it really is better to have actual evidence than to fill in what one wants to be the case based on circumstantial evidence.
Atheism is a belief. The main tenant of atheism is that those who are not atheist are wrong. If you are an atheist, you are required to believe this. There is no middle ground: it is the central and affirmative belief of atheism that 'religions' and 'religious' people are wrong, misled, deranged and/or willfully duped. If you don't believe this, you are not an atheist. You can split hairs and get all wishy-washy and call yourself an 'agnostic' or 'skeptic' or what-have-you... but you cannot escape the direct result of a denial of religion: that practitioners of religion are wrong.
Only insofar as you might wish to see religion in strictly utlitarian terms: which terms might seek to replace the purported wrongheadedness of religiousity with amoral manipulation. Boy o boy, what a great leap forward!
But even if you could make this argument with a straight face, to date you are the only one who has made such an attempt: the defining feature of every atheist polemic in the past few years has been strident, virulent and unalloyed opposition to religion. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and most self-proclaimed atheists here have staked their arguments clearly on the worst parts of religions they despise. Hitchens makes the title of his book about God and the rest of the thing about people who fail to live up to Hitchens' expectations of a God he doesn't believe in. Compared to Hitchens, the gordian knot was study in linearity...
And the NPR piece at the beginning here only proves the case: people actively and affirmatively denying God, deliberately uttering blasphemy and desecrating religious symbols and iconography. If they simply didn't believe in a God, they simply wouldn't do these things. Rather, they affirmatively believe that people of faith are misguided deliberately mocking them in attempts to provoke... as the central tenet of their atheist beliefs compel them to do.
You cannot escape the fact that atheism is rooted in condescension and arrant intellectual snobbery.
You seem to have listened to the NPR clip selectively. They were contrasting some atheists who are anti-religion with others that are not. I am not sure how you get from that the idea that all atheists are anti-religion.
It is true that if one believes atheism is true than one believes that people who believe things inconsistent with atheism are wrong. (Although one might note one does not have to believe that Unitarian Universalists are wrong because they don't require any beliefs inconsistent with atheism despite being a religion).
If one thinks that it will rain tomorrow one believes that people who think it will not rain tomorrow are wrong. No hostility towards such people is required.
But there is nothing about being an atheist that requires theists be anything more than wrong. They do not have to be misled or duped. People are often wrong about things.
Note that the NPR clip argues that this aggressive atheism is a new thing. To use it to conclude that atheism is rooted in condescencion and arrant intellectual snobbery is to misunderstand the content of the clip.
To take atheism to require opposition to religion is to trivialize the notion of opposition to religion. By this standard Jews must, by definition, be oppposed to Christianity and Christianity must be opposed to Buddhism and every belief in the world turns out to be rooted in condescension and arrant intellectual snobbery.
This sentence makes no sense. What does that even mean?
This statement is breathtaking in its naivete. It completely misunderstands the relationship of Judaism to Christianity and elides the fact that, as a Christian, I'm not required to think about Buddhism at all (though I do... but not in opposition). As a Christian I am only required to think about God. However, I have met more than my share of Buddhists and Hindus who save a place in their teleology for Christ and His teachings... And my dabbling in Buddhist meditation techniques and other teachings has informed my Christianity. Ghandi famously declared himself a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim and a Hindu, all at the same time. This is not possible with atheism. Atheist have cut themselves off and provide only refusal and denial.
grok,
You are right that when your argument about atheism is applied to any other group it comes across as naive. But that is because your argument is incredibly naive.
Atheists can, and many do, find value in the ethical teachings of Jesus. The Golden Rule is a strong ethical principle. Many athiests also find things of worth in Buddhism.
Buddhism and Christianity have principles that are directly contradictory. To the degree that one accepts those principles from Christianity one rejects the principles from Buddhism (unless one is priding oneself on ones ability to believe 6 contradictory things before breakfast).
This does not imply any hostility. The situation between the atheist and the Buddhist is the same as that between the Christian and the Buddhist. Each believes that the Buddhist is wrong about some things, but each is free to study Buddhism or to ignore Buddhism altogether. Only the Christian has a moral imperative to try to convert the Buddhist.
Because of the exclusivity of most Christian doctrine, Christianity is generally more oppositional than atheism or other religions. (Although there are more inclusivist strands of Christianity).
The new atheists are at their worst when they try to tell theists what they have to believe. Hitchens idea that doubt shows a lack of faith is silly. But you are doing the same nonsense here. You are telling atheists what they have to believe. And you are simply wrong about it. If you oppose atheism it should be based on what atheism is, not what you want it to be for the purposes of attacking it.
Atheists are not required to think about Buddhism. I have met my share of atheists who have a place in their teleology for Jesus and his teachings (a different place of course than the Buddhists and Hindus) and whose dabbling in Buddhist meditation techniques have informed their atheism. If you want to come up with a difference between atheism and religious tolerance you need to do better than that.
And remember, Buddhism does not require belief in any deity.
Now you're just doubling down. Typical.
Whatever incompatibilities and differences exists between Buddhism and and Christianity, or any religions, are derived from the differences in thinking about the numinous. One says potay-to, the other says potah-to. Any reconciliation that happens, as with Buddhism and Christianity, happens as a result of respect for moral belief.
But with atheism, the difference and incompatibilities ARE the belief. Any reconciliation between atheism and belief, as you yourself have just acknowledged, comes about merely for the sake of extracting utility from the teachings and discarding that which is deemed without utility. And the utility is deemed accidental or subconscious. Atheism, by definition, cannot respect moral belief. And the hostile, aggressive atheists are merely the most honest about it.
@Grok. I certainly believe in God, but not an anthropomorphic God with moral imperatives or as a separate precursor from and handler of Creation.
Insofar as Jesus is concerned, at most I see him as a peer of Walt Whitman, Milarepa, and so on, and that you and I are equal chunks of the divine as well; to that I also admit rivers and the sound of thunder, certainly the ocean from whence life has originated on this planet.
I acknowledge awe and mystery, but I also believe that a great deal of religious belief is an ignorant substitution of literal for metaphorical understanding.
I do believe Jesus was accurate in saying you know people by their fruits, and the fruit of organized religion has been long and bloody.
In the above and other ways, I am someone who both believes in God and who is sympathetic with atheism that rejects the concept of anthropomorphism as the basic tenet of its skepticism and calls to task organized religion naked in its blatant and hypocritical posturing of moral high ground.
grok,
I am an athiest. I respect moral belief. You are making your argument by saying false things. That is the sign of a bad argument.
I am not sure why you think that atheists who respect Jesus' teachings do so out of utility rather than respect for moral principles.
You are now calling the major doctrinal differences between the various religions no more than a potato potatoh distinction. That is a far more condescending position to take towards the views of many religious people than I would ever take, at least to people who have given serious thoughts to their worldviews.
What you and the people trying to show that religious people are irrational have in common is this unfortunate desire to think that one cannot think that people are wrong without thereby thinking they are irrational. It is quite possible to respect beliefs that one disagrees with. It is possible to find wisdom, and not just utility, in the views of people with whom one disagrees even on very basic issues. Your idea that this is not true of atheists shows an unfortunate willingness to impose bad principles on people you disagree with. It does not say anything about atheism though.
The term I use to distinguish the ranters from the unconcerned is Antitheist, similar to Sully's distinction between Christian and Christianist. Most atheists, like most Christians and Hindus, are merely anIslamic and aBuddist. But there are certainly shrieking extremist Christian anti-Islamics, shrieking Jewish anti-Islamics, and shrieking atheist anti-Islamics. Full antitheists, who are thankfully few, are loudly anti-everything (and, to me, amusingly unself-aware).
My rule of thumb: When you run into the fundamentalist evangelical unbelievers who insult all religious belief with proselytizing zeal, you are no longer listening to an atheist. You are hearing the rant of an antitheist who willfully ignorantly professes to be "only" a rational atheist.
Great point.
Great point. Bertrand Russell makes a much more convincing "rational atheist" argument than Hitchens or Dawkens, without the vitriol.
I can't believe y'all are this deep into this conversation and there hasn't been a mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May his noodly appendage be upon you.
If one were to prove the existence of a deity, one would still have to prove that such deity was worthy of worship. This second step is actually a much larger burden than the first.
My personal take on "evangelical" Atheism vs. "quiet" Atheism is that they are complementary. People standing up and saying, "This is who I am, it's good and you just have to deal with it," has a distinct social benefit. I don't think them insulting believers is a problem, either -- while it is rude, there is also a social good inherent in trying to make people account for their positions. Now, having said that, it is the quiet people, those going about living their lives morally without appeal to a deity who actually consolidate the freedom the "evangelical" create space for. Once theists see Atheists as decent human beings who live, work and play amongst society, the psychic impediments for discrimination have grown. So, the "evangelicals" help create the space for Atheists to be "out" while others consolidate this space.
We've seen a similar thing with the Christians. Evangelicals have gotten more expressive in public and they have broadened the mainstream to include them. Not too long ago, there were shows on network TV about angels. Without the Pat Robertsons of the world this never would have happened -- this type of cultural expression was not mainstream. Perhaps the Hitchens of the world are creating a similar space on the other end of the spectrum.
TNC,
The program stated that atheists like Christopher Hitchens argue that religion can motivate people to fly planes into buildings.
Your post says, "This idea that only a belief in Allah\Christ could convince someone to fly a plane into a building just strikes me as incredibly naive."
How did you get from A to B? I don't know any atheist who argues that religion is the SOLE source of evil in the world, and I've read all of the "New Atheist" works closely.
I like your writing and your blog, so pardon me when I say this, but this post is an absurd mischaracterization of atheist's beliefs. If you see this "ending in a pogram" then you should try breathing into a paper bag.
I'm thinking this was a jokey ironic comment about the pogrom. Doubt that TNC actually believes this - you can't post this much every day without relying on a bit of blog snark for punctuation.
I'm not quite clear on who Coates thinks will be doing the pogram. It certainly seems more likely that pissed off fundamentalists would than that the small number of mouthy atheists would. But I am not sure which way he means to suggest it would go.
It's about dogma. Sam Harris et al would write books about the dangers of the other types of dogma (Stalin's communism, for example) if those other forms were still dominant and/or they'd endured for thousands of years. Religion is the target because it's the type (or source of) domga that is so tightly connected to Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism, the "culture wars" in the U.S., the Israel-Palestine conflict, and on and on. Political forms of dogma have usually undergone scrutiny from their outset, but religions are given a free pass because they are religions. The "new atheists" are riling up their opponents mainly because they have dared to apply the same standards to religious beliefs that they apply to everything else. (Actually, they simply apply the same standards that most of us apply to everything else——you don't have to be a scientist to not believe in something.) Their overarching point is that we ought to reserve certainty for those things that can be proven, verified, or, at the very least, supported by something other than "I feel it." Dawkins et al dismiss god just as most of us dismiss Santa Claus, gremlins, the FSM, and all the rest. They're simply being consistent. Beliefs that would be viewed as symptoms of insanity are cherished or tolerated when they fall under the umbrella of an organized religion. Why?
This is only true if, as with Stalin, the only outcome of religion were violence and danger.... But you cannot argue that a system that has perpetuated itself for thousands of years is inherently destructive. It would have destroyed itself long ago, as the Soviet Union ultimately did, if this were the case (ref. Thuggee cult for further study...).
The explicit thematic underpinnings to your argument (i.e. "beliefs that would be viewed as symptoms of insanity are cherished or tolerated..." ) assumes an undercurrent of derangement for the entire existence of the human race. My-oh-my... how did we ever get along...?
Leaving aside the specific question of religion and dogma, under this schema Beethoven would never have composed music he could not hear... Perhaps you think he was insane?
Um, if you look back at that thousands of years. Most of those years had slavery, the subjugation of women, fear and superstition leading to actions such as the witch-hunts going on in Africa today.
The central point of skepticism is that none are without error. We are all deeply flawed at determining what is true. All have scales on their eyes. When one realizes this, they learn that they must be very careful about what they conclude is true as they very well could be horrifically wrong.
All of human history is violence and danger with societies destroying themselves and each other.
This atheist thinks religion is dangerous not because it is inherently violent but because it is inherently resistent to rational argument and therefore change. It is dangerous because it blinds us, while telling us we are seeing better than any could imagine.
How interesting! This notion of error (or 'sin' as we like to call it) is also, perhaps coincidentally (or not), the central point of Christianity... Um, what were we discussing again? oh yeah...
I think you might be interested in Maimonedes writings. He postulated that you can't make affirmative statements about God: you could not, for example, say "God is infinite", since you neither know nor can comprehend the infinite, but that you could say "God is not finite." He was very careful about what he could conclude...
As for me... there are tests that can be made and have been made that lead me to certain verities: mercy is better than cruelty; justice better than capriciousness; love is better than hate. However much these things have been obscured and oft ignored by religious people, they remain the central tenets of the faith.
This is a fair point, if you assume that Ted Haggard and Pope Benny are the best that religion can provide. This Christian likes to believe that MLK jr and Ghandi are a good deal more representative of religion, however flawed they, indeed, were...
Your Beethoven analogy sucks. He was able to compose music after going deaf because he'd had perfectly good hearing for the first 25+ years of his life. Likewise, if I were to go blind tomorrow I would still be able to visualize my experiences both past and present. Duh.
Show me a Beethoven who's been deaf since birth and I will begin to accept that the miraculous events that believers claim to experience every day are possible, and that god may be real.
Those paying closer attention to the debate will note that I said nothing, whatsoever, about Beethovens ability to compose music he could not hear. Whether or not Beethoven COULD compose music is quite beside the point that he DID compose music despite the fact that he could not hear it.
You should go find the fellow with whom you are having this argument, and continue it with him. I said nothing about the numinous. I was only replying to the contention written above, by you, that:
Beethoven, quite apart from any religious experience, could not write music that, to a certainty, be supported by anything other than the statement "I feel it". The point.
Duh.
To Grok: Ghandi and MLK jr. are certainly not the average religious person. But that isn't religions fault, they were not the average person.
The probelm with religion is that Pope Benny and our friend Mr. Haggard are the actual leaders.
As one can never know what a person who wears the label christian believes I cannot assume that you believe in hell. But if you do it is a truly monstrous doctrine.
"As for me... there are tests that can be made and have been made that lead me to certain verities: mercy is better than cruelty; justice better than capriciousness; love is better than hate. However much these things have been obscured and oft ignored by religious people, they remain the central tenets of the faith."
regarding said tests, do you have a reference to them that I might examine? A link or a book reference will have to do as this comment thread is a bad forum for that sort of thing. I ask out of mere curiosity.
Organized religion has been a handy tool for unbridled violent and oppressive behavior for quite some while among our species. But it has not been their only vehicle. Governments and gangs serve quite well. What marked Stalin, Hitler, and Mao's fanatical violence, however, was not their atheism. They did not slaughter in the name of atheism. But no doubt Communists and Hitler did what religions have done, which is to violently target for a variety of reasons some religious sects as a tool of their misrule. Humans don't need religion to be evil, nor does religion confer any umbrella of morality against its history long crimes.
But perhaps those worried about the "atheist agenda" in our nation or why such debates and commentary leave atheists prickly should go and rent the film Jesus Camp. Afterwords we can debate about which camp is more likely in our nation to wield power negatively.
It's funny for me to even talk about all this; I'm a life long believer, but in our nation and over the long haul of history, I would suggest proportion and perspective. And want to shout out to my atheist brothers and sisters; it's easy to see, is it not, why atheists feel threatened.
I always love the straw men arguments that are leveled against the "New Atheists". None of them are saying only religion promotes violence. I love all the arguing about an Athiest "non-belief" and the tortured logic to make it the same as a belief in god. I know someone up thread hates the spaghetti monster analogy, but disbelief in the SM is not the same as belief in the SM. One is a non belief based on lack of evidence, the other is based on no evidence just gut feeling. And believing in the SM is just as valid as believing any other god. It has just as much evidence.
Oh, so freaking late to this party! ("Party"? really, ellaesther? Can a discussion of terrorism really be considered a party? But I digress).
Robert Pape, at the University of Chicago, wrote a very important book about Suicide Terrorism called Dying to Win (http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175) (full disclosure: I helped with the Hebrew-language research, but I would find it a very important book even if not!) in which he found that, at the time of publication (2005), "the world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families" (among other useful bits of information!).
Now, where things stand today what with all the people blowing themselves up in the Middle East and Central Asia, I'm not sure. But his research is still very worth looking into.
Religion is a form of ideology. There are religions and ideologies that have always explicitly promoted equality and freedom among all humans, sexes and animals - I support all those. But to quote Abraham Lincoln: “I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it”.
The idea of "dominion" is one of the scariest things I have heard in my life, even if George W Bush's former speech writer Matthew Scully finds a nice way to interpret old words. A good ideology, in my book, does not leave room for long interpretations when it comes to the right to be free - it is clear.
Even lumping the "New Atheists" together is problematic. The label encompasses a variety of approaches and perspectives.
I think my favorite New Atheist is the underrated Greta Christina. PZ Myers also ranks up there, though his rhetoric can be harsher than I personally prefer. I can't stand Hitchens, and it bugs me that he's probably the atheist that your average American is most likely to be familiar with.
One thing I've said on other blogs is that I see two aspects to the "atheist movement". You can be into both, and many atheists are, but some are not (and some emphasize one much more than the other). And they lend themselves to very different styles.
There's the civil rights/anti-prejudice/separation of church and state aspect (which is the side that I have cared about since I was a little kid and being bullied for being an atheist). These are groups like the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF) and the Anti-Discrimination Support Network (ADSN), as well as, of course, individuals who don't belong to any group. This aspect of the atheist movement tends to focus a lot on building relationships with allies, and some of its groups are mixed atheist/theist groups.
And then there's the aspect that is promoting the atheist viewpoint. This side doesn't really have a concept of allies, because its goal is to persuade people of a certain idea, to convince them that you are right and they are wrong, rather than to achieve a social justice aim. A lot of the famous "New Atheist" books are dealing with this aspect. I have never had much interest in this aspect, though I think promoting your view in the marketplace of ideas is a totally reasonable thing to be doing.
You know, listening to this story, what really occurs to me is that, as usual, a great deal in life comes down to "don't be an &@%hole."
Strip away the window trappings, and extremists on both sides are often identical (which is why you so often see the real die-hards flipping with ease from one side of the spectrum to the other). An insult is an insult no matter what its flavor. If you're evangelizing for atheism, it's as annoying as if you were evangelizing for a religion. An atheist displaying a rusty nail through a communion wafer is just as obnoxious as a Christian feeding a Koran to a pig. Same intolerance with identical goals: to hurt, harass and bully.
Since it's fairly obvious that to walk up to a human being you've never met and give him a good, hard shove is no way to convert that person to your side, I'm more than slightly skeptical about the new atheists' claims to be trying to further their movement. It seems to be more about showing off the same kind of smug self-righteousness that religious fundamentalists exhibit. Oh, and if you sell a lot of books while you're at it, that doesn't hurt either.
Don't be an *&@hole. If you can't show respect, you don't deserve any in return. You're a kid throwing a tantrum. And that's true for both sides.
You do realize how the rusty nail through the communion wafer thing happened right?
There was a college kid who kept the wafer without eating it and left a service. The kid was subjected to harassment and they tried to kick him out of his college. He even received death threats. PZ was able to have the death threats and other nonsense directed away from the college kid. The stunt was done to make the point that no idea is so sacred that it cannot be criticized. This is why there were pages from the Koran and the origin of species in the trash can as well.
People deserve respect by default. Ideas do not. This is the point of activities like blasphemy day as a protest against anti-blasphemy laws. People have rights, ideas don't.