I hoped this was a sly atheist commentary on the season, but I think I see Jesus glowing under there. But it does give me an idea for a nativity scene.
Goddamn, this is tiresome, just this headline:
Why “new atheists” are ignorant about God
That’s like a headline that says, “Why ‘new skeptics’ are ignorant about unicorns.”
It’s an interview with theologian John Haught about how new atheists haven’t earned the right to be atheists or something, because I dunno, they didn’t martyr themselves by swimming in religion before deciding it’s crap. Which, to my mind, is a sign of progress. I shouldn’t have to sink myself neck-deep in nonsense to have the right to call it nonsense. Do I have to study unicorn lore up and down before I get to say unicorns don’t exist?
Your forthcoming book, “God and the New Atheism,” is a critique of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. You claim that they are pale imitations of great atheists like Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre. What are they missing?
The only thing new in the so-called new atheism is the sense that we should not tolerate faith because, by doing so, we open people’s minds to any crazy idea — including dangerous ideas like those that led to 9/11. In every other respect, this atheism is similar to the secular humanism of the modern period, which said that faith is incompatible with science, that religion and belief in God are bad for morality, and that theology should be purged from culture and academic life. These are not new ideas. But there were atheists in the past who were much more theologically educated than these. My chief objection to the new atheists is that they are almost completely ignorant of what’s going on in the world of theology. They talk about the most fundamentalist and extremist versions of faith, and they hold these up as though they’re the normative, central core of faith. And they miss so many things. They miss the moral core of Judaism and Christianity — the theme of social justice, which takes those who are marginalized and brings them to the center of society. They give us an extreme caricature of faith and religion.
You know why critics of religion were awash in religion in the past? They didn’t have a choice. The fact that atheism is a relatively new thing in Western history speaks volumes about the levels of control the church had over human thought and discourse, the amount of punishment a person would face for speaking up about their doubts. If the unicorn cabal had nearly the same power and authority, we’d all be chastened day in and day out this day about how it’s “intolerant” not to nod condescendingly at the pitiful unicorn believers rather than state openly that it’s all nonsense. The right to criticize the church boldly, and without having to caveat it to death by “earning” the right is a victory for freedom and tolerance and all that great progressive stuff.
To point to a handful of liberal churches that exist in the here and now and ignore the fact that people were literally scared for their lives, their freedom, and their careers to speak out against the great racket that is faith for the past couple thousands of years is to commit the sin of historical ignorance that he’s accusing the “new atheists” of. The dichotomy between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist only exists now because religion has lost so much power and control over people. Liberal churches are the ones that have reached a compromise position—they cede the right to certain amounts of political power in order to be acceptable enough in an enlightened, secular society to continue existing. As people have increasing amounts of power to vote against churches with their feet, the liberal churches are making more and more concessions. I agree that new atheists could spend more time analyzing this phenomenon and theorizing if the end game for the liberal church phenomenon is to concede itself out of existence, or if there will always be a shell of a church to satisfy basic ritualistic needs of a community.
But I’m sick to death of the whine about new atheists pointing to the fundamentalists. It’s actually quite simple why the fundamentalists are important, and it’s because they were quite likely an inevitable result of the increasing loss of church power to secularism. Fundamentalists are disgusted with liberal churches, who they see as a bunch of pussies who have given up what’s really important about religion (power) in a bid to continue existing. Which strikes the fundamentalists as no different than running up the white flag. What’s the point of religion, if not to have an unquestionable, unproveable authority to invoke to force your will on everyone else? The great offense of the new atheists in focusing on fundamentalists is that they’re saying, in essence, the fundies have a point. The heavy fist of the great patriarchal god of the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims ceases to make sense if you’re not willing to put it to use for political purposes. The reason that a lot of us are suspicious of the “moderates” of these monotheistic traditions is that they’re merely distancing themselves away from the central theme of their various religions, but they haven’t abandoned it completely. Sure, they’re amendable to the realities of a secular society by and large, but can they be trusted to always put freedom and tolerance before their religion? Considering how many liberal Christians whine about the need for the Democrats to relinquish their investment in protecting women’s reproductive rights or investing in the growing pro-gay voting bloc, the answer is all too often a big, fat “No.”
Now, I think there’s a reasonable criticism to be aimed at the “new atheists” for a failure of imagination. It’s possible, for instance, that some Eastern religions have been compatible with modern society in a way that the big monotheistic three have not. It doesn’t hurt that some of these traditions are basically atheistic or at least have a different view of gods and power. Learning about the diversity of religions out there might temper some “new atheist” arguments, at least when it comes to imagining what would be required for a truly secular and progressive society to exist. But that point is basically beside the point of this whine about Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre, who were arguing in the same monotheistic framework as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.*
By the way, my point about how the atheists that Haught admires lived in a world where there were social pressures against atheism that have faded to a large extent makes this quote really creepy:
Yes, they did. And they thought it would take tremendous courage to be an atheist. Sartre himself said atheism is an extremely cruel affair. He was implying that most people wouldn’t be able to look it squarely in the face. And my own belief is they themselves didn’t either.
The longing for a time when atheism was scary is no joke. Haught’s trying to convince himself that atheists in the past were maybe a little more mealy-mouthed because they “knew” deep down in their colons that god is very pissy at the atheists, but I’d say that the more visceral understandings that people in the past had of church power and the way it could destroy—and their thorough understanding of the past penalties of death and torture for heresy—probably had a lot to do with it. It’s true that if you think long and hard about what would happen to heretics if the churches weren’t kept in check by secular society, it would put a little fear into your heart. I wouldn’t conflate that with fear of god, but more the fear of those who don’t like having their beliefs questioned. I bet if Haught wanted to find himself some modern atheists that express the proper levels of fear, he’d have some luck rooting around a theocratic nation like Iran.
Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus eventually realized that nihilism is not a space within which we can live our lives.
Oh, two can play at that game. I’d say religion is far more nihilistic than atheism. Atheists believe that humans are enough, that our lives are worth something by themselves and that we have the power and freedom to invest value in ourselves and others. Religious people think humans are fundamentally small and weak and have no ability to invest in themselves and others without making up a Sky Fairy to pass out those judgments. It’s clear that the latter view—that humans are inconsequential without a make believe third party to render value onto us—is by far the more nihilistic.
*—shudder—-
Methinks that the so-called “new atheists” (translation: atheists who don’t indulge in suitably grovelling deferene to faith) are starting to get under the skin of theists. A good sign that the uppity peasants are starting to actually bother the aristocracy is when the latter gets more dismissive and tense in its language.
Of course, Haught can’t hold a candle to the great Christians of the nineteenth century, either.
And if I have to know everything about Christianity to be an atheist, should Haught have to know everything about Islam to be a Christian?
They can’t help themselves. Slinging bullshit is all they know how to do, and it isn’t like reason is a theist’s best weapon.
I don’t think the “skeptic/unicorn” analogy is the most apt. I think this is more of a Zeus situation. Why should anyone believe in Christian mythology if they haven’t first immersed themselves in Greek mythology? Why monotheism instead of polytheism? The fact is, I never understood why monotheists always crowed about how their mythology was so much better and made so much more sense than polytheism. There’s this attitude of “Wow, when they finally realized there was one mythical god instead of many mythical gods, it was so brilliant!” It makes no sense at all.
No, these new religionists don’t deserve to be monotheistic until they have sacrificed a cock to Asclepius.
Got this from PZ:
Churchgoers should look at themselves first before asking others to act with dignity and civility - Briggs
The best bit:
“The good news for religious groups: People who go to church regularly were less likely to be prejudiced, Pyle said. The bad news is people with no religious affiliation were also much less likely to be prejudiced than individuals showing modest levels of commitment to their faith, those who attend services monthly or less.”
Exactly how are we ignorant of religion when they admit themselves to being exactly what we say they are - bigots.
A good post, Amanda, and it produces a number of thoughts.
..>> I think that DBK is spot on with the mono/poly analogy.
..>> If one concedes the notion that we are living in an era of struggle between secularism and atheism then it is easy to see why the so-called moderate monotheists are not exceptionally liked or respected by either side. Both sides see them at best as useful idiots for the opposition and at worst as quislings.
…>> Anybody who follows a faith wherein a god will on His Judgment Day destroy everything and everyone of all his creations, good or evil, ugly or beautiful (just to say “I WIN!”, after all) is in no position to call anybody else nihilist.
The term “New Atheist” was coined by some fucking asshole as a way to make it sound like our disbelief is just some rebellious phase, like Sophmore Lesbians or some such shit.
And for the record, some of us “New” Atheists have studied religion. I spent years reading every book I could get my hands on, trying to find a form that would allow me to express my faith. It took me years to realize I didn’t actually have any and was essentially looking for a matching third shoe to fit my nonexistent foot.
I’ve had conversations with a Franciscan monk who is a friend of my wife’s family in which he was impressed that I, an atheist, knew more about Catholic theology and iconography than my wife’s catholic family. Yet, I haven’t studied enough religion to be able to reject it?
And like this asshole’s lack of scientific knowledge has ever stopped him form pontificating about evolution.
My favorite complaint is the one about how ‘new atheists’ don’t have the proper knowledge of theology. This is something Dawkins actually addressed in his book, I’m wondering if they were listening: We don’t need to have knowledge of your sophisticated theology, because the most sophisticated, complex theology in the world is still made the fuck up!
I mean, they just make this crap up out of thin air, and we’re supposed to waste brain space on it? I actually get along great with my religious friends, mostly because they aren’t telling me all the things I need to know before I can disagree with them.
Haught says: “The new atheists don’t want to think out the implications of a complete absence of deity.”
Ah, but for the new atheists, there’s no point to dwelling on the “implications” because it’s just life. I mean, I don’t need to waste time thinking about why chocolate isn’t blue–it just isn’t, it never has been, and it never will be. Missing the blueness has no point. (And the analogy’s not so great because there aren’t millions of people devoted to chocolate’s blueness–but in my life, blue chocolate and a deity are equally relevant.)
Haught seems to think atheists live in a world without hope. Hey, I have hope. Sometimes those hopes are dashed–will the U.S. and China really get cracking on the fight against global warming before it’s too late? But I have hope that human beings are innately good enough that, you know, atheists won’t slap me for sport. Haught sells people short if he thinks god is the only sensible reason to have any hope.
Keith, I think you might be an Old Atheist.
This whole “study the faith(s)” nonsense is just the theists’ transparent attempt to shift the argument from ground where they do not want to be and are terrified to be (”okay, prove that your god exists, or, in the alternative, provide me with some, any evidence that he does”) to ground where they need to be (”you don’t get to criticize or even question me because you haven’t passed your test on
The Lord of the Rings, no,The Complete Works of Jackie Collinsthe Bible! yet. So I Win!”).
Actually, atheists spend a good deal of time pondering that. Atheism implies growing up, no longer seeking answers from a mythical father figure. For lack of a better summary, atheism is the acceptance of the core fact of existence: Responsibility, a responsibility that can’t be buck-passed to a mythology. “[A]theists don’t want to think out the implications…”? Please. We’re the ones doing most of the thinking about ‘em. Theists spend much of their time assuming that He Will Make Things Right eventually.*cough* This fellow may want to make sure that his own side knows their theology before whining that other people don’t know it. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ve noticed an awful lot of Christians, in particular, who have never actually read that whole book.
“The term “New Atheist” was coined by some fucking asshole as a way to make it sound like our disbelief is just some rebellious phase, like Sophmore Lesbians or some such shit.”
I imagine there is some difference between someone who arrived at their atheism after having gone through a religious phase and someone who is essentially naive to the idea that people ought to go around believing complex things about entities whose existence can’t be demonstrably proven.
For instance, the former will probably just look at a deeply religious person as if they’re being rather silly, while the latter will likely be tempted to recommend that they seek mental help as soon as possible.
Hmmm…if atheists aren’t getting their ideas of what religion is from studying theology, then where are they getting them from? Could it be possibly…observing the self-described pious practitioners of said religions and how they interact with the world?
No wonder atheism is on the rise. Practice what you preach or contribute to your own irrelevance.
Plus I like how the author implies that the old atheists that he professes to admire were actually full-of-shit closeted believers, ‘cause it’s too scaaaaary not to believe in god.
I’m less annoyed by the idea that believers think I’m going to burn in hell than I am by the weird belief they seem to have that atheists aren’t ACTUALLY atheists and are just trying to be rebellious or something. Believe it or not, we REALLY, HONESTLY, TRULY do not think there’s a higher power.
“What’s the point of religion, if not to have an unquestionable, unproveable authority to invoke to force your will on everyone else?”
I think it is important to distinguish between Christianity and Jesus here. True, the Christian church as an institution is guilty of some of the worst crimes of human history. But Jesus, whenever questioned about the “unquestionable” authority of the law would tell a parable that took neither side, much to the chagrin of the “religious” leaders of the day. This is the revolutionary side of Christ…the part that the right never emphasizes.
I consider myself to be a Christian Atheist. I don’t believe ANY of the supernatural (walking on water, Noah’s ark, etc.) events of the Bible (or any other book) actually happened. I doubt that there is a heaven or a hell in the conventional sense. But that doesn’t mean that they are useless. THese stories speak to the nature of humanity. I am a Christian because the message of hope over despair that Jesus taught is the guiding principal of my life.
The fundamentalists think that faith is meaningless unless one believes the Bible is an actual account of actual events. Some of my sister and brother atheists also feel that if the Bible is not a journalistic and scientific account of history than religion is meaningless. We often hear that something is a “myth,” meaning it is a silly story that has no consequence. I would argue that the myths that we human beings have created and told each other for thousands of years are what make us human. Religion and faith, at least for me, are not about belief in the supernatural. They are about how we can see the world in meaningful ways.
I may have missed this, but I think the “New Atheists” are so called because there was a very large and kinda organized expansion of “Free Thought” back in the 19th century. See Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism for some of the history of atheism in America. It’s a fascinating read and gives a good perspective on how close we came to continuing the Enlightenment ideals of the founders before being derailed, particularly by the fear of “godless” Communism. Much of the power of American churches came in with the fear of distinguishing ourselves from the commies. If they were without god, by god we’d be all about god.
The other element I want to perhaps nuance is the quote from Sartre:
Not having the crutch of a god to take credit for anything or a devil to take the blame IS frightening. Not having a god showing you the way means you have to make it all up yourself. Way too scary for many people to face.
This is my first time posting here but I’ve been reading your site faithfully ever since I first found it. I love the different perspectives on events and ideas that I don’t get elsewhere. I’ve found myself agreeing with most of what this site has said but this time I would like to respectfully disagree with some of the points raised here.
In the interest of full disclosure I view myself as religious although I have always questioned certain points of theology. I believe in a God, but I also don’t go around proselytizing and I’m most definitely not a wingnut (I don’t believe in hell, I believe in evolution, female preachers are the norm in my church, etc.) All this is basically leading up to say that if someone wants to try to convince me that my religion is not real, I would prefer that they at least understand my beliefs first. This stems from when I was younger and was confronted by people who disagreed with my pacifist stance but didn’t understand anything about it. If I engaged with them, I wasted more time explaining that their concept of pacifism was wrong than I did actually debating the issues.
I don’t know much about Haught and I have never heard the “new atheist” term before, but if any type of atheist wants to debate with me, they better respect me enough to know what I believe beforehand.
They miss the moral core of Judaism and Christianity — the theme of social justice, which takes those who are marginalized and brings them to the center of society. They give us an extreme caricature of faith and religion.
Actually, I applaud him for this very succinct description of the most prominent and visible religious leaders of the day.
Thanks for this post, Amanda. I came here straight from Salon because I was getting a headache from rolling my eyes so much reading this Haugh guy (and I only made it though the first page!). I was hoping you and the commenters would have the antidote, and you didn’t disappoint.
“It’s an interview with theologian John Haught about how new atheists haven’t earned the right to be atheists or something, because I dunno, they didn’t martyr themselves by swimming in religion before deciding it’s crap. Which, to my mind, is a sign of progress. I shouldn’t have to sink myself neck-deep in nonsense to have the right to call it nonsense. Do I have to study unicorn lore up and down before I get to say unicorns don’t exist?”
So, is it okay with John Haught that I did “swim” in religion for many years before deciding it was all bunk and rejecting it? Or does he have some other weaselly way to discount my views (and other people like me) in favor of plunging me back into the mindless voodoo of religion?
I’ve always looked at the difference between needing religion and accepting the non-existence of god(s) as being similar to the difference between being a child and an adult.
A child assumes someone will fix their problems if they are unable to do so. An adult may seek the help of others, but ultimately takes responsibility for their own life (as much as possible). A child is comforted by the (possible) existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin, etc. An adult sees the acceptance of reality as being far more important than the maintenance of (comforting?) fantasies. A child cannot ultimately be held responsible for their actions because they are incapable of true understanding. An adult accepts the responsibility for their actions, good or bad, and suffers the consequences as they arise.
Being an adult is not necessarily fun. There is often a great deal of pain and heartache in the knowledge that you must ultimately depend on yourself and other (flawed) humans for “salvation”, and not pretend some supernatural being(s) is manipulating your life and relieving you of all responsibility.
Likewise, when shitty things happen to you and people you know and love, there’s no satan, or some other embodiment of evil to blame. Shitty things just happen.
All in all, I would much rather accept the reality of existence, warts and all, then engage in an illogical, unreasoned, self-contradictory, and hallucinatory belief in the supernatural.
But that’s just me…
argh.
as a feminist, i come to feminist blogs expecting a higher level of discourse, and not this nonsense. so disappointing.
first off, the salon headline is “the atheist delusion,” which is a clever pun on dawkins’ book.
secondly, the subheadline asks why “new atheists” are “ignorant about RELIGION.” this is not the same thing as God, phenomenologically speaking, even linguistically speaking. anyone who has done reading in philosophy of religion (you know, by those no-names, like Kant, Hume, Hegel, etc.) knows that when you hit the beginning of modern theology in Schleiermacher’s ON RELIGION, there comes a discursive centering on religion and not God. these are not the same things.
Also, ever since the mid-20th century, the studies of theology and religion are not the same things either. Religious studies is an inter-disciplinary filed involving history, literature, sociology, anthropology, philosophy and more. one would think such distinguished academics and intellectuals would know something of the academy.
Now, it is for damn sure that you don’t need to enter into a 5-year long seminar on christian theology to be an atheist. this is an orientation of belief that requires no adherence to theological inquiry. even considering that one should engage in such a project implies that christianity has an objective view on God or some such, which is hugely problematic.
However, if one is going to write about RELIGION, as a social, cultural, political, discursive and aesthetic phenomenon… it probably would help to know something about what you’re writing… about. i mean, right? doesn’t this seem obvious? dawkins, harris, hitchens and dennet have no academic background in what they’re attacking. it’s absurd that you’re taking them seriously.
Now, if they provide reasonable arguments about belief in God as a purely (il)logical move, then fine.
But they are not critics of religion if they know jack shit about it.
Not to enter into a detailed critique, but suffice it to say that they, methodologically speaking, have bought into the (christian) fundamentalist program of “biblical faith” and scriptural literalism and inerrancy. this methodological approach is as problematic for the believers as it is for the atheists. they totally ignore the importance of the interpretive community. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR FEMINISM, the communal interpretation of texts.
What they write, it’s actually offensive in its simplicity and stupidity. they think that texts speak for themselves and no religions have changed since the time of the Bible. this claim in itself is just stupid. when was the bible redacted? who put it together? what sort of political claims did they have in mind? how are the texts used today? how is the world different now from then?
none of these questions are asked by the “nu-atheists.”
And this is their problem.
I don’t ask them (or you, Amanda) to know Xian theology (esp. since I am a Jew), since clearly it cannot provide objective info on God (biased claim!), but they should know something about how to study religion. then they should actually study religion. THEN they should write about it.
“Not having the crutch of a god to take credit for anything or a devil to take the blame IS frightening. Not having a god showing you the way means you have to make it all up yourself. Way too scary for many people to face.”
It’s really not accurate to state this as a universal truth.
I think this can be true for some, but I wouldn’t say it’s generally true for atheists. For people in transition, those who have felt there is a god or a devil it might be frightening to let go of that. But for people who were raised atheist or those who never felt that to be true in the first place it’s a non issue. Personally, I find it liberating. As a child the idea that there was a god watching every move I made was much more terrifying.
also, what is disturbing to me is the seeming knee-jerk embrace of these white men, who, almost to a T, subscribe to a classically liberal (read: libertarian) political program.
you know what was my favorite part of “the end of faith?”
the part at the end when harris defended the use of torture, especially against brown muslims.
how tolerant!
what a free thinker!
the “Free-Thinkers” are part and parcel with a political/philosophical program that seeks to champion the Enlightenment and reject the revolutionary critiques of the postmoderns.
and as a generally 3rd wave feminist site, i am especially surprised that this move is replicated here.
1) Believe what you want. Or don’t believe what you want.
2) Shut up about it.
3) Don’t pick low-hanging fruit.
4) Happy Holidays.
Cool. When do we take off our clothes?I’d say that the more visceral understandings that people in the past had of church power and the way it could destroy—and their thorough understanding of the past penalties of death and torture for heresy—probably had a lot to do with it.
In Nietzsche’s time, and to a much greater extent in Camus’s and Sartre’s, the threat was much more like what it is today: That of social ostracism and eviction from formal political processes. Which kind of brings up the one potentially healthy by-product (or, maybe, unspoken reason for the existence) of religion: social cohesion. Unfortunately, the overwhelming tendency in the “big three” abrahamic monotheist religions that dominate Western civilization (tho much less so in Judaism) is toward cohesion through obedience to powerful and unaccountable leaders. Let’s face it: Germany had some real social cohesion too between, say, 1937 and 1943.
What was even more frightening to Sartre and Nietzsche was the social stigma that came with being an atheist in their time. Public Atheists like Voltaire were sentenced to house arrest. Nietzsche was considered a rascal and a corrupting influence. Sartre was someone to be feared because he might contaminate you with weird, French ideas about Being and Nothing. Hell, they killed Socrates because he wouldn’t sacrifice in the temple like a good little Greek.
Up until about 30 years ago, being a publicly avowed atheist meant becoming a social pariah at best. Before the seventeenth century, it was a death sentence. So yeah, maybe some of the old school Atheists were a tad weary, but only because there was always the concern that Theists would string them up and light them on fire.
And my point about “New” Atheism was that it isn’t new. Some of us looked into religion for a while before realizing it was all fairy tales and wishful thinking, others went with their intuition and rejected it at face value, saving themselves the time and mental gymnastics required to parse some of the more surreal theology out there.
But the overall point remains the same, however you get there: once you are outside of the religious mindset, it all looks like Scientology.
There is a world of difference between having not an academic background in something and knowing “jack shit” about it, invisible_hand. One can be knowledgeable — even damn-near omniscient — about a topic without having gone near a Ph.D. review committee. Your argument about these critics of religion is pretty much a parallel to the article at issue, in that it rests on the false premise of “you didn’t study X the way you Should Have! No opinion allowed for you! Nyah-nyah nyah-nyah nyaaaaah-nyaaaah!”.There are quite a few academics who post here and I don’t think any of them have been so paralytically stupid as to assert that the lack of a specific academic focus on a given topic is synonymous with being ignorant on the topic.
I tend to be a bit critical of Dawkins, Harris, and particularly Hitchens. That said, I think the complaint that atheists don’t know theology is just silly. I’d similarly say that Damon Linker over at TNR has a better critique of Htichens et al but also overreaches.
Specifically, I think this statement by Linker is bull:
So promoting your beliefs to others is illiberal now? That’s nuts.
Regardless, those critiques are a transparent attempt to establish myself as not a concern troll when I ask this question:
How open are you to alliances with liberal churches willing to treat atheists (and women and homosexuals) with respect? That is to say, those that condemn the Romney speech and other slurs against the moral character of those who reject faith. I don’t see anything in the above entry that rejects the possibility of such an alliance. However, I tend to read Harris and Hitchens as rejecting the possibility of such an alliance as they view liberal churches as enablers of fundamentalists. (Obviously you have many breaks with Hitchens, I’m just wondering if this is one of the areas where you break).
invisble_hand siad:
dawkins, harris, hitchens and dennet have no academic background in what they’re attacking. it’s absurd that you’re taking them seriously.
Now, if they provide reasonable arguments about belief in God as a purely (il)logical move, then fine.
But they are not critics of religion if they know jack shit about it.
Have you read any of the books by these authors? I’m guessing not, since if you had you’d have read the parts of their books were they address these exact claims and shoot them the fuck down.
Dawkins’ book, as an example, is called The God Delusion, not the Religion Delusion. He systematically confronts the belief in God and says very little about religion. But when he does talk about these systems of belief, he does so from the perspective of a secular academic, citing sources and backing up his argument with the latest available data and research.
And if you’re upset that all these books were written by people with penises, write your own! I’m sure a feminist critique of Theism would be interesting. However, dismissing ideas simply because the authors are male is merely reactionary.
I think the problem may be that parents and larger society are no longer indoctrinating children on the same massive scale they once were. This results in kids rejecting the God thing wholesale before they can have a chance to be scared witless by visions of hell.
In other words, they lost their non-compete agreement. The sky fairy thing has no cred with da kids anymore.
Speaking of unicorns…“There are quite a few academics who post here and I don’t think any of them have been so paralytically stupid as to assert that the lack of a specific academic focus on a given topic is synonymous with being ignorant on the topic.”
How come there’s no respect for the autodidact? Especially when it comes to religion?
Given the paucity of actual information generally available to the common believer (who is usually just told what to believe and think), self-study is about the only way you can ever get at the real core of most religious belief systems…
Seeker wrote:
“If one concedes the notion that we are living in an era of struggle between secularism and atheism then it is easy to see why the so-called moderate monotheists are not exceptionally liked or respected by either side. Both sides see them at best as useful idiots for the opposition and at worst as quislings.”
As an atheist, I see the religious believers who don’t want to legislate their beliefs and don’t go around proselytizing me as…well…people. If they let live, then I don’t view them through the prism of their religious beliefs at all. I see your point about “an era of struggle”, which makes your statement more valid, but religious believers are far more likely to believe we are engaged in such a struggle than atheists, who are generally far less inclined to engage in wars of any kind, be it a War on Christmas or a War of Religion v Secularism or any of that stuff.
And to add to what Keith said about his own studies, I took a theology class for each of four years while in high school and also had five years of Hebrew school as a child and studied Buddhism in college. I hope that qualifies me to be an “old atheist”. I’d hate to lose my atheist street cred. And I hope John Haught gave Zeus and Hera and Athena and Apollo and company a good deal of consideration or he’s just one of these “new theists” and therefore not worthy of the title of “theist” at all.
Well that settles it, other than the many cases in which it doesn’t. Trust me, trust me trust me trust me, there are oodles upon oodles of believers out there, myself included, who follow the Big 4 I have listed above, who can separate spiritual from pragmatic as easy as making a sandwich. Truly, our God is not one of any state, for whom only a singular relationship is the key to any relevant degree of spirituality. I mean, they were to make Jesus a king and he told them to shove that crown somewhere else. That’s evidence enough for me that my own God bidness has no bidness with anyone else.
I go to church because it reminds me to care for people who have less, to be fortunate for the things I have, and to apologize to myself and to the world for my shortcomings. That I need religion for this makes me a unicorn-loving dumn dumn, I guess. I can live with that, as long as the ends are the ends.
Seeker6079:
Okay, I’ll back that up to church-goers. Probably no real church fully respects any other church let alone atheists.
Think a little bit harder about the sociology of atheism before saying things like this. “The peasants” in this case are disproportionately affluent, educated white men. I’m not denying that atheists are discriminated against in some spheres, particularly politics, but the discrimination is not very systematic. People who work in the national media and financial establishments are almost entirely atheist or at least indifferent to religion. Atheists lack political power, but as a group we have, on average, an enormous amount of cultural capital.
Regarding the substance of the post, you don’t need to understand religion to reject the truth of its foundational claims, but you do in order to make blanket pronouncements about its sociology. You can’t just say “The point of religion is political control,” full stop.
Best line of the day.In the event that Haught might need my credentials: I was raised a Roman Catholic. In Italy. I think that’s enough swimming in religion to grant me the privilege of deciding that it’s all bullshit.
I’m an atheist and I have been an atheist since I was 14. I almost went through an exorcism because of my stated lack of belief in god. Fortunately, the priest my family dragged me to determined that while, yes, I was possessed by some demon, he really couldn’t do anything about it.
Do I need to fill out a form to prove I don’t believe in god? Take a lie detector test? Truth serum? Possibly a little torture?
The new atheists don’t want to think out the implications of a complete absence of deity.
On the contrary, sir, I have much pondered such an implication. Humans are in control of their own destiny, and our grand purpose it to live on this tiny grain of dust we call Earth. The Universe is immense, wonderful, and mysterious, and we can never hope to understand it all. What we can do is live. Live well, be happy, find some form of fulfillment. That’s all there is to it, and I much prefer it to a big bearded nanny in the sky magnanimously giving me life so I could worship him.
As an atheist who WAS neck deep in shit for 20+ years, I don’t recommend it to anyone.
I married an atheist. Huge Dawkins fan. Went a half-year quoting The God Delusion to me.
Neighhhh.
seeker6079: (”you don’t get to criticize or even question me because you haven’t passed your test on
The Lord of the Rings, no,The Complete Works of Jackie Collinsthe Bible! yet. So I Win!”).Good point. What that shift does is to move the debate from the religious sphere to one of art criticism.
I have to admit that people judging the literary merits or the lack thereof of books that they know nothing about peeves me. So everyone wishing to debate whether the Bible is great literature or just hackwork by a bunch of Gilgamesh epos fanboys that make the Harmonians look sane should better have read that Bible.
But that’s a completely different discussion than if it is true, or relevant. The most awfully written 4th grader’s “What I did on my holiday” can be completely true, while, say, “Don Quixote” is completly fictionous. And you do not have to actually read the book to know whether it’s truth, lies or fiction.
preying mantis: I imagine there is some difference between someone who arrived at their atheism after having gone through a religious phase and someone who is essentially naive to the idea that people ought to go around believing complex things about entities whose existence can’t be demonstrably proven.
I grew up knowing that people used to travel on horseback and believe in God, but that these days we had cars and trains and knew where the world was coming from — but just as riding was fun, telling stories about what god did was fun.
I still haven’t fully groked that there are people who really believe. Deep down I still feel that they are just method acting.
Invisible hand, what the hell are you talking about?
Oh, well. Never mind. Your posts were kind of unorganized and tl;dr, so I didn’t try to make sense of them. I’ll just disagree now.
I wrote a long and winding rant about being an ass and defending religion from one of the poor pathetic believers, but it turned into something half apologia, half personal credo, and half crap, since I don’t get enough sleep these days. If you really wanna read it, it’s going to my blog.
Just to sum up, I agree with rmj at Adventus, that many atheists are attacking parodies of religion and theology, rather than addressing the substance. There may be a refusal to admit there’s any substance there. I’ll sorta kinda talk about that at my place, too.
I don’t ask that you share my faith. I don’t ask that you “respect my beliefs”(empty phrase that it is). I ask that you respect me as a human being enough to not be an ass about my having them. That’s all I really have to say.
Oh, and PS, at least one liberal Christian would raise holy hell if the Dems threw the gays or the women under the bus. Just sayin’.
invisible_hand: you know what was my favorite part of “the end of faith?”
the part at the end when harris defended the use of torture, especially against brown muslims.
Just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean they can’t be an asshole.
Yikes. This might be the distinguishin feature of “new atheism,” that it’s wrapped up in this nasty materialist-rationalist idea of Progress.
Scott the obscure: many atheists are attacking parodies of religion and theology, rather than addressing the substance
Many vocal religious leaders promote a parody of religion and theology.
Amanda, your comment reminds me of a British comedy program I saw once when I was vacationing in Europe. The comedian said something like this: “There are two approaches you can take to the Bible. You can study it carefully, and pronounce it crap. Or you can not study it, and pronounce it crap anyway. I’ve chosen the second course. Saves a lot of time.” After I stopped laughing, I was amazed. I couldn’t imagine such a sentiment being expressed on TV in the U.S., where religion must always be treated respectfully, and atheists are treated as nuts. If you don’t believe that you have an invisible friend, you’re crazy!
Brendan, that it’s wrapped up in this nasty materialist-rationalist idea of Progress.
When you walk to school every day past the place where the duchess used to have women burned as witches, you develop a tendency to see rationalism as a Very Good Thing.
Brendan, your argument about just how common and influential atheists are in the USA would be more believable if you, in your turn, had ceased lecturing me for a minute and noticed that actually admitting you are an atheist is the kiss of death for a career in elected office. (There is, what, one currently admitted atheist in the entire US Congress?) I would argue that any viewpoint so reviled in political discourse as to render any candidate terrified to even admit subscribing to it cannot be considered culturally or sociologically dominant in any way.
And, sociologically speaking, when was the last time you heard a person of faith have to show deference and courtesy to the concept of atheism when discussing faith? That never happens, but the opposite is certainly true. Indeed, in a society where the starting point on secularism vs. theism is that the secularists and atheists have to do a verbal kowtow to the worthiness of their opponents’ belief without being entitled to one in return pretty much knocks your cultural capital argument for six. (Further, in a country like America — where cultural power is intimately tied into political power — your notion that being culturally in charge [which we are not] when theists hold all the reins of political power is a non-starter.)
And by the way:
You wanna back that one up?The problem with Theology in general is that it is not complex, it is generally based on very simple principles. The reason that the religious claim it is complex is the same reason that your average stoner thinks that his poetry is deep, because of an altered state of mind.
Any time I have pointed out problems with religious philosophies, I have been told that I just need to have faith… that means that I need to enter into a religious mindset and alter my perceptions through the use of religion in order to understand it.
This is something that I, Dawkins, Hitchzo the clown, and all the other “New” Atheists are not willing to do, very simply because it makes no sense.
But my poetry totally kicks ass.
As a sweeping statement, I find that a bit absurd, and more, it really reinforces the whole point of the thread.
Disclaimer: I am not an atheist.
I would agree that if someone is going to write a more or less scholarly piece (or even have stated opinons) trying to pick apart specific theological points, then it behooves them to know what they are talking about.
That’s the whole straw man idea - inventing something you decide someone else believes, then arguing against the made up stuff rather than against their actual beliefs.
It is entirely another thing - and Amanda’s primary point, if I got it right, to say that the entire discussion is pointless because you don’t believe in any of it. People saying that have no responsibility whatsoever to study the material.
It is the difference between, say, diving into the argument over whether Kirk or Picard was a better starship captain, and saying that you have no opinion because you don’t care to watch Star Trek.
Insisting on discussion atheism in terms of theoligical points is absurd on its face, for exactly the same reason that quoting the Bible in an argument for Biblical literalcy is absurd.
Religious people need to deal with the fact that the justification for that ended with the Inquisition and its ability to just burn the non-believers. They have to learn to stop treating atheists like heretics. It is not heretical to disagree from the outside. It is just disagreeing. And it puts the responsibility for proof back where it belongs - with the believer
It’s very simple.
If it looks like shit, smells like shit, and tastes like shit, it’s shit. I decided a long time ago to stop asking for the sampler platter.
Scott the Obscure: I don’t ask that you share my faith. I don’t ask that you “respect my beliefs”(empty phrase that it is). I ask that you respect me as a human being enough to not be an ass about my having them. That’s all I really have to say.
Sweet pea, as long as you respect me enough not to use your religion to legislate my rights as a human being, I have no problem with that.
I don’t think it’s others’ beliefs that are a problem for most of us–just those who want to make their beliefs everyone’s beliefs, to the detriment of rationality and freedom. For instance, say, trying to change education credentials in a very large state..? That’s where a helpful belief and comforting idea becomes a huge dangerous weapon.
For a (believing, one assumes) theologian to be complaining that atheists aren’t engaged with the details of christian theology seems to me a little bit like a convenant-marriage advocate complaining that lesbians don’t spend all their time reading up on men. From a theological/philosophical point of view, it just makes no sense: if there ain’t no god, then no spiritual/philosophical purpose is going to be served by studying all the myths people have made up about him/her/it.
I think this is actually an important trend: atheists who haven’t left any church/temple/whatever, but who have never had one in the first place. There’s a certain loss (you wouldn’t have The Amber Spyglass if Pullman weren’t a Church of England atheist) but also a tremendous gain in an atheism that’s (relatively) free from reaction.
The stuff about ethics and moderate churches and so forth is interesting from a sociological/psychological point of view, but Haught is stupid to make that argument as a theologist. Atheists have never argued that god doesn’t exist because people claiming to be disciples of god have acted like thoroughgoing assholes throughout history. That’s an argument against certain churches, not against the existence of a deity.
I’ve always looked at the difference between needing religion and accepting the non-existence of god(s) as being similar to the difference between being a child and an adult.
Then you’ve obviously never familiarized yourself with god concepts in which the believer asks for help growing up and taking responsibility for his/herself. Or god concepts which posit the “higher power” as more of a “collective higher mind” than a “sky fairy.”
I’m not, mind you, saying everyone needs this, not even close. And I think the concept of the original article — that no one has the “right” to be an atheist unless they’ve done an are-you-there-god-it’s-me-margaret type of “spiritual search” — is just as stupid as saying nobody could possibly be gay unless they’ve slept with the opposite sex first to make sure they didn’t like it. Salon just likes to bait people and get as many page hits as possible anymore; I figure “a blushing defense of the John Birch Society” isn’t far down the road for them.
But as a 12-stepper who would probably be out on the street somewhere if not for her program — which does include asking a Higher Power for guidance, since “my own best thinking” was what got me to rock frigging bottom — I completely object to this idea that only atheists are adults and anyone who believes in any kind of higher power is a helpless child waiting to be “rescued.” If I still believed that, if I refused to get any kind of help lest I be taunted by the kind of smug atheists who would roast me on a spit for “refusing to grow up” when I desperately wanted to do so and simply did not know how, I’d never have changed in any material way. Everyone’s got their own path, you know? I would never, ever expect anyone to follow mine, because it’s mine. It’s not all black or white, it just isn’t.
P.S. I’m a Jew. And I wouldn’t belong to any church or temple (synagogues seem to have been forgotten in all of this) that didn’t respect nonbelievers, gays or feminists. Not for a nanosecond.
Yes, Meowser. As you said, your Higher Power is as YOU define it, and you don’t GET to tell other people in the group how to define theirs. It’s always “God as we understood him”, not “do it this way or you’ll burn burn burn”.
Like I said above, I, as an atheist, have no problem with believers unless they want to TELL ME what to do (or change laws that protect my freedom).
I think that’s part of the “adults and children” concept; you’re an adult who’s letting others choose their own way. There are believers out there who are still children and want to tattle and say “Ooooh, you’re gonna get it….”
MikeEss, I would argue that the autodidact is becoming a less and less respected species. It always amuses me to read the stories of 19th century amateur explorers and scientists who added countless libraries worth of knowledge to our culture. Many (most?) of them were autodidacts. Today, of course, the universities in question would send back their materials with a snippy little note, an application form to their undergraduate program and a demand for a $175 application fee.
I got a real laugh some years ago when I applied for admission to an MA program in history (on “advanced standing”) to a Canadian university. The admissions committee decided that my law degree, eleven years of practice, and thirty years of independent study in history (to the point where one respected professor candidly admitted that I could walk in and teach a class on my area of specialization) were worth exactly one year of undergraduate study as far as the U. was concerned. What made it very funny was that I had predicted exactly that result.
In many ways religions suffer from one of the key illnesses of universities: they cease to be about knowledge and start to morph into guilds. Religions add the rather poisonous flourish of only being about knowledge (or the Search for same) when they seek to highlight their own worth. If it is applied as a tool or weapon against them then the concept of knowledge and the Search are instantly dismissed and derided.
seeker,
Here is a CUNY study on religious demographics in America: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm It is not ideal for this discussion because it does not ask about atheism but about “outlook,” which may be secular or religious,and correlates it with ethnicity but not income. Interestingly, Asians are more likely than whites to identify as secular; if most of them would identify as atheists, then I was wrong to that extent. African-Americans comprise the least secular group; though of course race is not a perfect proxy for income, African-Americans have a significantly lower average income than white Americans.
You could probably arrive at better data if you combed through everything available at the U.S. census website. Notably, the about.com site on atheism concedes the point: http://atheism.about.com/od/excusingantiatheistbigotry/a/Privileged.htm I’m assuming that guy did his homework, because that site is huge.
The fact that atheists are, on average, socially privileged is not, of course, a criticism of atheism, but it is evidence that discrimination against atheists is not particularly systemic or widespread structurally.
Damn it, I could have sworn there was an ümläüt there. Now I have to return all these “System of a Down” CDs.
I can’t speak to the rest of the authors (Harris is dead to me since he fell for the ticking time bomb meme, Hitchens is dead to me since he thought the Iraq war was a damn fine idea, and I haven’t gotten around to reading anything by Dennett), but the central point of Dawkins’ writings isn’t that religion is bad, but rather that it’s wrong.Religion is fandom. If you imagine it that way, it makes a lot more sense. You have a small body of canon, a larger work of fanon, and tons of rabid adherents. While I don’t think anyone’s ever gotten stabbed over the everlasting “Kirk vs. Picard” debate, the idea is the same. Criticism can be pronounced on a fandom without reaching the same level of initiation into its mysteries as its most devout members. Criticism can most definitely be pronounced on the truth or falsity of the canon without becoming a fan in the first place.
This smells to me like a retread of the initial criticisms against The God Delusion–that Dawkins couldn’t possibly make a pronouncement on the likelihood of religious belief being true, because he didn’t know a heap of theology. The claim has apparently retreated into one that Dawkins can’t criticize the institution of religion unless he joins the cult himself. It’s still roughly as stupid.
I can do no better than to quote PZ Myers :
It is politically stupid to be an atheist without some understanding of the cultures of religions. Consider it “opposition research” if you will, but you simply won’t have a clue about the mindset of fellow Americans if you don’t bother to ascertain the outlines of what they believe, why they believe it, and how their religion functions in their lives.
You don’t have to LIKE their beliefs. You do have to take their beliefs into account when talking with them. And I am not just talking about the esoterica of theology, which really is secondary. I am talking about the developmental and cognitive psychology of religious believers. Are they authoritarian followers? Are they questioners who admit they don’t have all the answers? Are they the rare peaceful and accepting types who don’t try to dominate or have their surrogates (priests, God) dominate the lives of others? There’s a world of difference between a Jerry Falwell and an Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Google Robert Altemeyer, “The Authoritarians”, for a free ebook on authoritarian psychology.
Google James Fowler, “The Stages of Faith”, for a summary of that book, frequently assigned in liberal seminaries, discussing styles and development of faith.
For analysis of right-wing religion trends, see www.talk2action.org .
If you want to read a fine history of American atheism, try Susan Jacoby, The Freethinkers.
Or skip the whole thing, if you aren’t interested in talking with or understanding people different from yourselves. It’s fine to be a subculturist who doesn’t have time for general-info reading.
I work hard for a raise. My God doesn’t care what I make.
My football team will win if they score more points. God doesn’t care about my football team.
Well that’s easy enough. Those who don’t provide a moving target, well, they don’t exist. Those who do, well, deserve our far-off mockery. In the meantiem, let’s talk to Ted Haggard for six hours. Win freakin win freakin win, baby.
Mercy me. What we’re saying here is, you know that ridiculous stereotype? Well it’s TRUE! And it’s TEH FUNNY! Yes, very enlightening, much in the same ways a Jonah Goldberg column is…”enlightening.”
Richard Dawkins is the Kansas State football of this general argument. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but golly, that loooow-hanging peach over there is just…a peach.
er, “meantime.”
Only because those wussy pricks at the security desk keep taking my d’k tahg away. I tell them it’s for religious purposes but they never listen. Oppressive secularist bastards.
Huh?More generally, this Haught’s “atheism leads inevitably to despair” argument is just a different version of the “atheism leads inevitably to immorality” argument. In other words, wishful thinking on the part of believers, which is definitely not borne out by experience.
AMANDA:
This question assumes that moderates see freedom and tolerance as separate from and subordinate to their religious convictions. For some of them, freedom and tolerance are integral parts of their belief system.
They pay respect to their ancestors and use the ancient religious writings as a starting point for their understanding of God, but they don’t see religion as a static institution incapable of keeping pace with modern understanding.
The fundamentalists want for religion to be an unchanging establishment, but it isn’t. Even as Christianity followed from Judaism, and Islam from a combination of the two older faiths, so too will new belief systems evolve in the face of a greater understanding about our origins.
That isn’t a “watering down” of the older faiths; it’s evolution.
SEEKER:
I would have to agree with you.
“And they miss so many things. They miss the moral core of Judaism and Christianity — the theme of social justice, which takes those who are marginalized and brings them to the center of society. They give us an extreme caricature of faith and religion.”
This would be because they’re looking at the logical core of Judaism and Christianity - “Believe In The Big Sky Fairy Because Someone 2000 Years Ago Wrote A Book” - and finding it wanting.
No problems with social justice. Big problems with Big Sky Fairy.
Bitter Scribe- Kansas State football made a name for itself in the late-90s by playing an absolutely atrocious out-of-conference schedule. Not a new strategy, sure, but KSU proved that you can go from a horrible football program to one of the nation’s best based pretty much just on picking the right teams to play.
I don’t deny Dawkins has his points. In the fight against fundamentalism I’ll share the sword with him.
However, what he also has a lot of is skillfully-picked opponents. So that the fundamentalist shills get ample airtime, the ones in the middle get a few snide remarks, and the rest of us- for whom faith is nothing more than a means of loving and caring for the Earth and its inhabitants- get a load of nothing. Except for the occasional broad swipe that misses the mark on its way to self-congrats.
I too have a problem with “Big Sky Fairy.” But as a believer who questions, I’m a non-person to Dawkins.
“I shouldn’t have to sink myself neck-deep in nonsense to have the right to call it nonsense. Do I have to study unicorn lore up and down before I get to say unicorns don’t exist? ”
If you study the unicorn lore long enough it becomes apparent that they do, in fact, exist- just in a much less pretty and more rhino-like form than the cartoons show. I can’t fault anyone for being a non-beliver, and even as a kid I couldn’t take the Bible as 100% literal truth, but I’m not willing to say, for myself, that it is not descibing, however badly, a real thing.
I just don’t understand. It’s not as though the bible contains all sorts of profound wisdom. Seriously. And it’s not as though it’s actually, you know, plausible, especially if you’re willing to reject equally implausible stories from other religions. There’s really no good reason to accept it.
Truth value? Very little, if any.
Oh, I don’t think a cranky Brit is your biggest problem. You’re a non-person to the vast majority of faithy types in this country; perhaps you’d like to start criticizing people for praying for a raise, or for that weird mole not to be cancer, or for victory for their favorite team, since these are all caricatures of your oh-so-modern faith that do nothing but make you the target of ridicule-by-association, right?Oh trust me. I do.
Is there any reason- any reason whatsoever- why the debate over faith has to be peppered with this sort of mockery? What point does this serve?
Those who aim to incorrectly ridicule by association should be held at fault for their error. Ain’t my bag.
I don’t think that’s what critics crying that Dawkins doesn’t share their fandom are complaining about. (I read The Authoritarians, by the way–good stuff.) Learning that all fundamentalisms seem to share certain traits (unchanging doctrine, contempt for women) doesn’t have much to do with learning the very important differences between the number of thorns on Jesus’s crown as described by the Reformation of 1811 and the Reformation of 1824.Of course it’s important to learn about religion, about why people believe what they do. One might wish that Christians would do the same for atheists, even. But, I say again, the criticism that is made against the current wave of atheist writers is of the defensive sort, claiming either that you can’t touch me unless you reach level fifty in my fandom, safe zone times infinity, or that my faith isn’t like the cartoon version you’re describing. (More about that when I reply to D.N. Nation.)
(intermission)
also, what is disturbing to me is the seeming knee-jerk embrace of these white men, who, almost to a T, subscribe to a classically liberal (read: libertarian) political program
This strikes me as classic all-or-nothing thinking:
Amanda’s post criticized the concept of the “new atheist” particularly as it compared them the “old atheists” who were too scared to say anything. She complains that theologians insist on controlling the terms of the debate between theism and atheism, and says that this is unreasonable.
She doesn’t actually argue in support of those white men, and in fact points out what she considers reasonable criticisms of them. She objected to the form of the critique, which is completely different from supporting the people who were critiqued.
But in the oh-so-typical good/bad, us/them, black/white thought patterns of monotheists, anyone who isn’t 100% for us is automatically 100% against us and therefore 100% for our enemies. /snark
Yes, I’m exagerrating there, but that mindset is what gives us public discourse along the lines of “If you don’t want to torture people, then you support the terrorists!” And, honestly, as a recovering Cathoholic, I’ve seen that mindset do horrendous damage to people and lead people to do horrendous harm to others.
I’m a militant atheist who doesn’t care much for Dawkins, but D.N., I don’t think you understand the arguments.
There’s one line of argument that says religion has been the vehicle for a great deal of suffering and continues to be. Now, you might say that YOUR religion is a good one that doesn’t cause suffering. Great. The problem, though, is that faith-claims are uniquely impervious to argument. The justifications for the religious believer’s actions, whether good or bad, are unintelligible.
So if I say that, today, I am going to fight for justice because God Wants it, we can all be thankful for my choice. But if tomorrow I say that God Wants me to hate gays or blow up a building, we’re terrified. But, and here’s the important part, the justification is the same.
Atheists don’t care that your religion is “good” or kind or loving. It’s accidental as far as anyone can tell because your justification, God Wants, is immune to reasoned discourse.
The other line of argument is that the arguments for the existence of this God fellow all fail. I’ll spare us all rehashing them, but atheists wouldn’t be atheists if we thought they worked.
The upshot of all of this is that it doesn’t matter which theistic religion is criticized if they share–as they necessarily do–an acceptance of faith claims as justifications and believe in God.
We get that some religions preach that God Wants the whole cabinet of progressive virtues. Nobody is claiming that religious people can’t be liberals
We just think they have terrible and unreliable justifications for it, just like conservatives, invoking the exact same justifications, have terrible reasons for hating gays.
Your god isn’t the same one that a lot of people also calling themselves Christians worship. One might even say a majority of Christians. We don’t have to guess about this–there are statistics. (Apparently most folks’ god doesn’t answer prayers for little stuff, but only for the really important things.) It would be a cheap shot if it weren’t the case, as I pointed out before, that your point of view is an insignificant minority, and therefore not particularly representative of modern Christian belief. So, you’re saying that the concept of people praying as though it’s a magic slot machine in the sky is a stereotype, and that it’s not representative of the way the faith is practiced. Again, this is manifestly not the case. It also seems that nobody, in this sort of discussion, cops to the Sky Fairy view, and berates people for being so gosh-darned mean.It seems that the conclusion one could draw from this is that the vast majority of Christians treat god as a Sky Fairy when nobody’s looking, but fall back to the Ineffable Symbol of Love or what-have-you when a critical eye is turned. Now, I’m not saying that you do (though it’s possible); I’m saying that the view I’ve described seems to legitimately represent the overwhelming majority of members of the faith to which you’ve tacked yourself. If it doesn’t describe you, then fine, have a cookie. I’m not arguing against you personally, but against the institution you’ve chosen to represent.
This is like pro-lifers claiming that they’re not misogynist. Sure, if you squint like mad, there’s probably one or two out there. (I think Hugo Schwyzer had some kind of reasoning that was reasonably well-accepted by folks around here, but I could be wrong.) But the movement as a whole is driven by the kind of juvenile hatred of women that pro-lifers rabidly deny. This isn’t really a matter that’s up for debate–there are charts, and all.
Interesting, because what I’m getting from the “stuffy white guys” is something along the lines of “you Muslims just won’t criticize the terrorists on your side!”.
Moronic thinking seeps everywhere, I fear.
MAJEFF:
Actually, there’s all kinds of great stuff in the Bible – and you don’t even have to look very hard for it. Take the Book of Ruth, for example: it’s the tale of two widows, one of whom left her homeland to join her impoverished mother-in-law on a journey back to Bethlehem. 3000 years ago, when these events (or some approximation of them) were supposed to have taken place, widows without living sons were among the most helpless and invisible members of society.
The Book of Ruth contains, among other things, an outright condemnation of racism; a mandate to provide practical help for the poor; and a rebuttal to the tribalism condoned elsewhere in the Old Testament. Considering its age, that’s pretty damned amazing.
And there are other areas in which the Bible is unique in the kind of wisdom it offers.
The earliest Biblical legal codes were on par with other statutes held throughout the ancient Near and Middle East, except that the limitations on revenge were a bit unusual: “An eye for an eye” was one of the first statements around that counseled proportional justice.
Another example: The six-day work-week, which barred masters from forcing their servants to work seven days a week, was a direct result of the Genesis story.
GRENDEL:
If I were tacitly condoning something as stupid as “ridicule-by-association”, I wouldn’t be as smug as you are.
“(intermission)”
…why does the damn intermission music have to be so boring? And why does intermission last so long?…
So that’s it, eh? That’s the alpha and omega? Well, it’s definitively an argument-stopper, so I have only this to add:
I’ll always side with you anyway.
More like “you Muslims claim to be the same religion as the terrorists when you’re sucking up to them, and claim to be a completely unrelated group when you’re not”. The central point here is that you claim to be a Christian, but your concept of Christianity is alien to the vast majority of Christians in this country. You want to be Christian enough that you don’t offend anyone, but not so Christian that you have to be an intolerant jerk. But in doing so, you’re explicitly providing cover for the intolerant jerk contingent.Talk about a modern reading. It can’t contain an explicit condemnation of racism because the concept of race didn’t exist.
“Actually, there’s all kinds of great stuff in the Bible – and you don’t even have to look very hard for it.”
But what is in the jewish/christian bible that is truly unique? Virtually everything in there is available from other sources. If the bible had never existed, we would still have access to - and be influenced by - the philosophical underpinnings for everything “great” found in the bible…
we all believe things that aren’t true.
we ALL do.
and they’re things that cause us to harm others.
that’s what being a human being is all about, along with dealing with the fear of death by pretending it doesn’t exist, etc. etc.
the point of the matter is - how rigorously do we question everything we believe is true, every single day? every moment that we with great surety say “i know what’s true!” - do we honestly examine, “what personal stake to i hold in this being true? what if it wasn’t true? what would happen if i let go of needing it to be true?”
few of us can do this, or if we can, can do this consistently.
on tuesdays i’m an atheist. on thursdays i’m a gnostic. and the rest of the time, i just don’t fuckin’ know. and i’ve read a whole lot of books, man. a whole fuckin’ lot of books.
here’s what i do know:
other people are the only thing that matters. THAT should be enough religion for anyone. and if you tell yourself that, or if a voice in your head tells you that, it all amounts to the same thing.
my theology is fairly summed up by camus’ “The Plague”, in which an atheist and a man of the cloth fight side by side against evil and despair, and their faith or lack thereof didn’t matter.
keep fighting that good fight my friends -
See, MAJeff, this is why pointing out the good parts of the Bible misses the point. I don’t care if it preaches flowers and kittens for nine-tenths of its length. It’s still treated as absolutely capital-t True revelation, hardened by tradition and served with the voice of authority. This means the bad parts as well as the good.While you can claim that the Bible is all about hugs and tolerance, and that the haters are Doing It Wrong, they can claim with equal (possibly better) authority that you are Doing It Wrong. The real problem, in any case, is relying on tradition, authority and revelation as the greatest paths to truth.
I’m not condoning it. I’m pointing out that D.N. Nation has taken the label of Christian, despite practicing Christianity in a manner contrary to the vast majority of folks today. Ridiculing that practice of the vast majority is bound to get some ridicule on people who take up the same name. That’s not my problem; it’s Nation’s.Do I seem smug? Could you point out the points where I displayed what you perceive as smugness, so I can try to decrease my level of smug in the future?
Now you have gone too far! I find it easy to be an atheist, even here in Oklahoma. But no Unicorns? You break my heart. Just because you don’t see them doesn’t prove they don’t exist. Maybe we have just brainwashed ourselves so we can no longer see them; just like we did with the monsters under the bed.
Cheers and keep up the good work.
What, is somebody standing beside Jonah Goldberg?No. But unless you’re able to monitor every living thing on every habitable