Tag: atheism

What is applied atheism about anyway, if not eliminating freedoms and killing communities? History teaches quite clearly that this is what atheists do best.

“Congratulations, you killed the forum.

Not just the forum, but the community as well. I’ll stay on until the new site and continue with my mod duties. But not with the format you propose. What you have proposed is going to kill the community, and many people will leave. Opening threads and speaking our mind freely is why we are here. Not being able to do that, not being able to talk about different things, not being able to debunk bad ideas, and more… those are some of the things that we are here for….

“The secretive way this has been handled and the exclusion of the hard working staff is an insult. We were promised input into the new site and to be able to test its functionality. We were led to believe that we were going to be included in the process and aid in the transition.

Now it’s presented as a done deal, and we’re condescendingly told to shut up about it and not cause trouble? To not dare contact Richard Dawkins about it?

It’s a familiar pattern. The upset forum moderators should be happy that it’s only a virtual community. And there are few things more amusing than Richard Dawkins’s belated discovery that his biggest fans are socially maladjusted pricks given to “splenetic hysteria”, “remarkable bile” and “ludicrously hyperbolic animosity”. Dickie dear, don’t you know that they’re just following your lead?

The American Psychiatric Association, with its release this week of proposed revisions to its authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is recommending that Asperger’s be dropped. If this revision is adopted, the condition will be folded into the category of “autism spectrum disorder,” which will no longer contain any categories for distinct subtypes of autism like Asperger’s and “pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified” (a category for children with some traits of autism but not enough to warrant a diagnosis).

The New Atheists are entirely correct to insist that their militant atheism is not a religion. It is not. It is merely a “pervasive developmental disorder.”

Richard Dawkins and the Reason Project have ulterior motives for helping Haiti:

Help for Haiti

It is widely imagined that, in times of crisis, religious people render aid in disproportion to their numbers. Richard Dawkins has now created an opportunity for non-believers to put the lie to this myth.

One hundred percent of the funds raised will go to Doctors Without Borders and/or The Red Cross (you decide). But giving in this way will send an additional message: one need not believe in God to care about one’s fellow human beings.

First, it’s not “widely imagined”, it is an established fact. I think it would have been much more effective if Richard Dawkins had set up the No Religion Emergency Response Squad to directly help the Haitian people instead of relying upon atheists to give money. That way, they could at least burn all the copies of The God Delusion and The End of Faith that would be donated for warmth and heat. And I’m sure the three Haitians lucky enough to score the sticks of gum from the near-empty pack of Juicy Fruit that was also contributed would particularly appreciate the effort.

Dawkins is such an unmitigated and self-centered ass that he can’t even permit a natural disaster to take place without attempting to turn it into a statement about atheists. If you want to help someone, then just shut up, do it, and spare the press release. Let not your right hand etc etc. The point is: it’s not about you or your godless ideology, you narcissistic wanker.

I happen to think it is stupid and pointless to “help” Haiti. I oppose all government aid; as for private giving, it’s no business of mine how you choose to spend your money. My point is simply that the Haitian people are in this desperate position due to all the “help” they’ve received in the past. Neither individuals nor societies change when others prevent them from experiencing the predictable consequences of their actions. This doesn’t prevent me from respecting those who believe otherwise, especially those like the four ex-military guys who took it upon themselves to fly to the Dominican Republic in order to personally deliver medical supplies to Haiti. I don’t respect those who give exactly like the Pharisees did; in order to find favor in the eyes of men.

The cynic’s reaction to this conspicuous charity is confirmed when Dawkins, or whoever wrote the appeal on his behalf, writes: “It goes without saying that your donations will only be passed on to aid organizations that do not have religious affiliations.” This is a clear admission that this “charitable effort” isn’t about helping Haitians, it’s merely about advancing the atheist cause.

In which I reply to the remaining portion of SS’s email from last week:

6) Your point about the way in which atheists construct our systems of morality is well made, and I take your argument about “moral parasitism” without offence. I am yet to be fully convinced, however- though I agree with both you and John Locke that atheists have a very hard time trying to prove that we are “moral”. (Given the awful record of atheists with political power, I think we’ve got a long way to go.) I think that the remarkable similarities that are found in the moral systems of various religions and civilisations demonstrates that it is possible for morality to “evolve”. This is not to say that all moral systems are equally acceptable. Suffice to say that I think I have a lot more reading to do in this area before I can fully agree or disagree with your argument.

7) I found your explanation of various aspects of Christian philosophy to be very enlightening. I was particularly interested to find out that Christians embrace the concept (at least in theory) of “many gods, one God”. It is the same in my country, where Indian Hindus see no contradiction whatsoever between offering alms to one of the millions of Vedic deities, and worshipping a unified Divine Power. The King James Bible is on my reading list and I’ll get around to it eventually; I think it’s past time to find out more about what the Bible actually says, instead of what the New Atheists think it says.

8) In your comments about omniderigence, I found myself wondering if Christian philosophy allows for a flawed Creator? If I understood your book, you do not believe in an omniderigent God. If God exists and is omniderigent, and is therefore capable of both good and evil, would this not obviate the need for Satan in Christian theology? (I think you may have already addressed this in a previous post; I’m just curious about your particular point of view on the subject.)

9) I liked your arguments about the hands-off “designer God” very much. It’s a concept that I’ve been thinking about for some time, and it seems no more or less silly than the “infinite Multiverses” idea. Since we have no idea (yet) about what exactly happened at the moment of the Big Bang, it’s as good a theory as any. I’m not personally convinced by the Designer God argument, but then the alternatives aren’t all that convincing either.

10) I’m curious about your arguments against evolution by natural selection. From what I’ve read of your blog posts, you don’t seem terribly enamoured of Creationism, but you slam TENS regularly. Is there room for any form of evolutionary theory in your view? I’m not trying to defend or oppose Darwinian natural selection; I’d like to know more about the theory’s weaknesses before coming to any conclusions. I just don’t know enough at this point to make a valid argument either way.

11) Your comments about Islam in the book dovetail very well with what I’ve been reading of late. I think atheists make some serious errors of judgement by attacking only Judaism and Christianity; as my own people have found out from very painful past experience, Islam isn’t exactly a friendly religion, and in many ways was less friendly to us than the Anglican British who invaded and conquered my country. If we atheists are going to attack religion, let’s do it consistently- and let’s attack religions on the basis of their merits alone.

12) What news of the Rational Response Squad’s work on refuting your arguments?

In conclusion, I’d like to thank you for providing some very good answers to some very important questions that I’ve been asking of myself for some time. After reading your book, I think I have a much better understanding of Christian theology in particular. I also think I have a lot more reading to do, which I generally regard as a Good Thing. And I will be looking with a great deal more scepticism at the arguments made by the New Atheists in the future. Thank you again for writing a most interesting and useful book; I look forward to reading more of your work in the future.

6) I think “atheist morality” is a misnomer in that there is no such thing as an atheist moral system there is only the opinions of individual atheists about other people’s moral and ethical systems. As for those moral and ethical systems, I think the similarities between the Christian systems and non-Christian systems are grossly exaggerated. For example, despite all of the hysterical reactions to my apparently infamous column on historical attitudes towards rape, not a single person even attempted to argue with the substantive point I made. So, color me dubious about the concept of moral evolution, which is a misleading concept anyhow. What is the moral equivalent of the species, the beneficial mutation, or the allele?

7) I have never understood the common Christian inability to understand that other gods exist, but are not to be worshipped. While I am aware of the tendency of Christians to cry “metaphor” every time a Biblical concept unsettles their assumptions, there is nothing inherently metaphorical about the statement “thou shalt have no other god before Me”; the obvious implication is that there are other gods.

8) Flawed by which standard? God is, by many human standards, flawed. Just ask Christopher Hitchens, who correctly observes that a human engaging in the various activities described in both the Old and New Testaments would be more than a little indictable by many human legal systems. I don’t recall reading of Mary consenting to an ex vitro fertilization procedure, after all. But this does not mean that He is flawed by the relevant standard, which is His. It is almost a tautology to say that God is perfect, in that He is the Creator and therefore the definition of perfection would change according to His will. So, to me the idea of a “flawed Creator” is essentially a contradiction in terms.

9) I would argue that it is markedly less silly. To me, the logic and evidence of God’s design, and designed purpose, is almost inescapable. I am always amused by those, like Richard Dawkins, who genuinely believe that flaws, perceived or real, somehow indicate an absence of design. They quite clearly have never been witness or a participant in a technology design and development process. Above all, keep in mind that you cannot correctly identify a supposed flaw unless you know the designer’s intent. The game designer can easily make a character in the game he designs immortal and impervious to harm. Why doesn’t he? Because it does not serve his purpose.

10) Despite the fervent denials of Young Earth Creationists and Darwinians alike, is plenty of room for evolution and creationism to coexist. Just ask the Pope. The core of my skepticism regarding Darwinian theory is that it is based on a logical concept that has not been sufficiently tested via science, the predictive and explanatory models it produces are either uselessly broad or wildly inaccurate, and the supporting evidence cited for it is reliably false. Time will tell, but I expect genetic science to eventually cast aside the remaining tatters of Darwin’s long-outdated theory. There’s very little left of Darwin’s original theory in the current synthesis, and much of what remains actually predated him. E Conchis Omnia, n’est-ce pas?

11) If secular humanists were one-tenth as rational as they like to think they are, they would be begging Christians to ally with them against a return to pre-Christian paganism. But for the most part they’re not rational, they’re shallow hedonists, anti-Christian reactionaries, scienthological romantics, and larval-stage pagans. Regardless, SS is correct. Every idea and every belief system must stand or fall on its own merits.

12) It would appear Mount Chapter Four has claimed another victim. My understanding is that Kelly is presently hors de combat.

SS is, of course, quite welcome and I appreciate his comments. I’m pleased that he thought well of the book despite his atheism, and I was even more pleased to learn that it has inspired him to delve further into these philosophical and theological matters. The primary conclusion I have reached after two years of intellectual dispute on this subject is that the vast majority of Christians and atheists alike would do well to read more, think more, and opine less. The truth is nothing more or less than what it happens to be, and not a single one of us properly groks the elephant. I’m merely hoping that I’m not the one with his head up the elephant’s rectum.

SS writes back:

Thank you for taking the time to answer my last email in considerable length on your blog. I wrote with questions about your latest book and professed an interest in reading The Irrational Atheist at some later date. I managed to finish it on a long flight back to the US a few days ago, and after a few days to think about it, I think you wrote a very good book that ought to be required reading for any atheist wanting to take on religion and especially Christianity.

While I can’t speak for the reactions of most atheists, I hope you won’t mind if I make a few observations and ask a few questions of my own.

(1) I think your tripartite criticism of the Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens group was both reasonable and accurate. I haven’t read either of Harris’s books (and have no intentions of doing so), and have been greatly underwhelmed by some of Hitchens’s public debates with people who actually know what they are talking about. I was not particularly convinced by Dawkins’s book either, but I didn’t quite realise how little he actually knows about religion until I read your dissection of his book.

(2) I particularly liked your division of atheism and atheists into the High Church and Low Church varieties. I started out as what you call a High Church atheist, but as my political beliefs changed to a more libertarian bent I found myself repulsed by just how militant many atheists- particularly the European variety- have become. In a recent interview with PJTV, author David Berlinski called atheism an “adolescent” view, and I think he’s got a point. If atheists really want to build a coherent argument, we have to stop sounding like a bunch of stroppy teenagers. I think your book makes this point very effectively.

(3) I am curious, though: why is it that in your chapter regarding the perceived Christian misdeeds of the past, you have excluded the Spanish conquest of the Americas, or the forceful introduction of Christianity into Scandinavia? If I understand your writing correctly, you argue that one should not judge a religion by its followers, and vice versa. But I think your argument would have been greatly strengthened by looking at one or both episodes, and at the reactions of the Catholic Church in particular to the grievous misdeeds carried out in its name in Central and South America during the 16th Century. I think that if you had addressed this, your argument would have been nearly airtight.

(4) Your point regarding the “red hand of atheism” is spot-on. It is an absolute travesty that my fellow atheists rarely, if ever, recognise that atheist Communism and Socialism is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people. Since becoming a libertarian a few years ago I’ve been disgusted by the apologies made by atheists for the horrific abuses of Communism, particularly in China and Russia, and it is completely unacceptable that atheists cannot recognise their culpability in promoting an essentially evil view of government. Until we repudiate the hedonistic and left-wing philosophies that pass for considered thought among the New Atheists, we do not deserve to be taken seriously in questions of morality and government.

(5) Your point about the way in which atheists construct our systems of morality is well made, and I take your argument about “moral parasitism” without offence. I am yet to be fully convinced, however- though I agree with both you and John Locke that atheists have a very hard time trying to prove that we are “moral”. (Given the awful record of atheists with political power, I think we’ve got a long way to go.) I think that the remarkable similarities that are found in the moral systems of various religions and civilisations demonstrates that it is possible for morality to “evolve”. This is not to say that all moral systems are equally acceptable. Suffice to say that I think I have a lot more reading to do in this area before I can fully agree or disagree with your argument.

In his email, SS also informed me that my surmise was correct and he is an LSE guy. Which is unsurprising, given that he is obviously more intelligent than the run-of-the-mill Dawkinsian atheist – it’s interesting to see the very different way TIA is viewed when seen from the perspective of someone who has come to it by way of RGD. I suspect economists will tend to be a little more open-minded than either physicists or biologists on average due to the speed with which the orthodox scientific consensus is regularly shown to be inadequate. This makes it much more difficult to shut off one’s brain and accept a doxastic division of labor based on credentialed authority. SS wrote later in his email: “Four years later, I’m convinced that the economic theory I learned is nearly useless. Maths, though, was great fun- and rather more useful.” He actually has 11 points, so I’ll address the first five today and save the rest for next week.

(1) I think one really has to read at least one of Harris’s books in order to appreciate how reliably awful his reasoning is. Hitchens, on the other hand, can be skipped because he doesn’t even attempt to make a case. His book is little more than a series of unconnected anecdotes, declarations, and complaints.

(2) One of my goals in writing TIA was to embarrass the atheist community into throwing out the likes of Dawkins and Harris in favor of developing a more intelligent, more rational atheism with a broader historical perspective. This is important; I read an article in a UK paper recently that was calling for an alliance between European Christians and secularists to deal with the rising tide of Islam, and that’s simply never going to happen so long as the atheist community is dominated by the rabid Christian haters. One of the more remarkable things I’ve noticed about atheists over the last few years is how utterly ignorant of history they tend to be.

(3) Since TIA was a response to the various atheist books, not an general Christian apology, I saw no reason to introduce defenses that were outside that context. The omission of such historical events initially surprised me when I read the books, given their goal of attacking Christianity, until I realized that the New Atheists know virtually nothing about the historical conversion of Northern Europe, the colonization of Central America, or the Belgian atrocities in the Congo. As anyone who has read Summa Elvetica knows, some of the theological issues surrounding these events are of interest to me, but they weren’t relevant to TIA.

(4) Yes, I tend to agree. The transparent attempts of militant atheists to disassociate the historical actions of militant atheists from their known atheism is intellectually shameful. However, I don’t think the needed repudiation is particularly likely, despite the Randians and Michael Shermer’s pro-Austrian perspective, due to the logical consequences and philosophical implications of godlessness.

(5) The “remarkable similarities that are found in the moral systems of various religions and civilisations may demonstrate that it is possible for morality to ‘evolve'”. Or they may indicate that God has written His Law in the human heart and the various divergences from it are to be expected as the result of societies falling away from it to varying degrees. Or, as I contend, the similarities are not be anywhere nearly as similar as those who don’t study history believe them to be.

Luke’s latest is up:

You are correct that for this debate I would like to contrast the explanatory merits of metaphysical naturalism with Christianity, not Christianity with other theistic theories.

I still think that even if theism were proved true that other theistic theories would have a better explanation for S than Christianity does.1 That question certainly would make for an interesting debate! But it’s not the one I want to consider right now. I will probably refer to competing theistic explanations in order to illustrate some principles of explanation, but my case will hang on whether I can show that metaphysical naturalism is a better explanation for S than Christianity is.