Wednesday, July 25, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Richler defends atheism

by National Post, Daniel Richler

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

This commentary is in response to "The God that whined" by Barbara Kay. Read it here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=a67220a1-834e-4f8d-8a1a-d4b8919b875c&p=1

Reposted from:
http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/07/25/letter-richler-defends-atheism.aspx

Barbara Kay rightly mocks the term "brights" that some atheists use to describe themselves, but in her drive to diminish an otherwise serious school of inquiry she tars too many of us with the same brush. Yes, unfortunately it was Richard Dawkins who coined it, but many of us are embarrassed by such conceit. Christopher Hitchens, for one, describes it in God Is Not Great as "cringe-making."

Ms. Kay is guilty of more manipulative generalizations. She claims that "about half of scientists believe in God." This is a wild and woolly estimate that Mr. Dawkins took great pains to disprove in The God Delusion. She calls modern-day atheists "truculent," as if they had no good reasons to be so. Mr. Dawkins is, in reality, the gentlest of polemicists, but even he is irritated by misrepresentations of his carefully stated case for atheism.

Ms. Kay presumes to speak for Albert Einstein, who, by calling him a deist, she'd like to include in her army of believers in lab coats. Both Messrs. Dawkins and Hitchens have expended much (apparently wasted) energy reprinting Einstein's actual statements about his faith, including: "I do not believe in a personal God … If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." He gave little wriggle room for a Maker, and repeatedly, throughout his career, none at all for religion.

Like so many religious fantasists, Intelligent Design nutters and professional casuists under siege from the latest generation of real information-seekers, Ms. Kay claims Einstein for her team in order to humble us. The fact is, the more deeply Einstein delved into the mysteries of the cosmos the more persuaded he was that a Designer God was the poorest likely cause of it all. In fact, later in life he wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is systematically being repeated."

If there were any atheistic commandments — and there are not because, unlike religion, atheism is not dogmatic — one of them might be: Take not the names of thy scientists in vain.

Daniel Richler.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 42 of 42 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #58673 by JoyOfLife on July 25, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I don't have Mr. Dawkin's book in front of me, but I don't think he coined the term "brights" did he? Can someone clarify as I have lent my book out. Good response to Ms. Kay's article, such as it was.

Other Comments by JoyOfLife

2. Comment #58675 by Nails on July 25, 2007 at 5:33 pm

No, I don't think he did.
I too have lent my copy out, but I seem remember him expressing distain at the use of the term for its lack of clarity and conviction.
But, he does explain that 'gay' was not the best of labels when it was first used by homosexuals but has served their purpose well.

Other Comments by Nails

3. Comment #58676 by _J_ on July 25, 2007 at 5:33 pm

JoyOfLife,

Correct: he didn't.

The noun bright was coined in March by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell of Sacramento, California.

From Dawkins' article, as reproduced at the-bights.net, here:

http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/let_there_be_brights.html

Other Comments by _J_

4. Comment #58717 by Corylus on July 26, 2007 at 12:36 am

It think it is important to check out the article this is a response to - link at the top of the page.

Barbara Kay's article is just awful. The gist of it appears to be 'well there have always been atheists about, but now they have just got so uppity!'

Dreadful piece. Poorly conceived, badly argued, completely unstructured and spectaculary guilty of the very arrogance of which she accuses atheists.

This is a very measured response.

Other Comments by Corylus

5. Comment #58734 by CJ22 on July 26, 2007 at 2:27 am

I note there's no comments feature on the article, nor link to contact the author, which in this day and age makes it a cowardly polemic.

I do think the whole 'brights' thing was a mistake. It's handed the religio-fascists a rod to beat atheists with. But this piece is wickedly propagandist and distorting, and the author should be ashamed at sneering at legitimate grievances. How many atheists in congress? Who's the least electable minority in America? Atheists aren't using the language of 'equal rights' as a means of getting special favours, they just want a voice. Kay's opinion is obviously that atheists should stfu and go back to being oppressed quietly.

Other Comments by CJ22

6. Comment #58738 by Quetzalcoatl on July 26, 2007 at 2:43 am

From the original article-

When bullets whiz overhead, there are no atheists in foxholes. What the bitter, bloviating brights fail to realize is that the whole world's a foxhole nowadays, and that their upthrust swollen heads make a better target for our mortal enemies -- religion's cancers and other, secular but equally totalitarian triumphalists -- than those humbly bowed in gratitude for mankind's loftiest ideals and supplication for the courage to defend them

Apparently atheists are now cowards, none of them in fox-holes? What a bizarre assertion. The last part is just sickening. "Humbly bowed"? Bollocks. She makes a great deal of fuss about "Brights", but seems to have missed the irony of how irritating the religious are with their opinions that they are "the Saved", "God's Children" etc etc. Richler's article gives this tripe more credence than it deserves.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

7. Comment #58740 by alovrin on July 26, 2007 at 2:56 am

I hope Barbara feels better after having got that diatribe out of her system.
She stuck an email address at the end, but I cant see any point in trying to engage her. Anyone else can if they want,BMG.

bkay@videotron.ca

Other Comments by alovrin

8. Comment #58744 by the.atheist on July 26, 2007 at 3:05 am

Why can't people like Barbara read the whole book, and not just small snippets that are not perfect?

If the Bible was treated in the same way, then it'd be dead.

Other Comments by the.atheist

9. Comment #58746 by Quetzalcoatl on July 26, 2007 at 3:09 am

Because reading it means she might have to think, and she doesn't want that. Much better to fire off strawmen and ill-founded assertions by rote than to attempt to actually engage the greyish jelly she calls her brain.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

10. Comment #58747 by tieInterceptor on July 26, 2007 at 3:12 am

on the comments on the article web, someone posted,

IainGFoulds said:

... Actually, though a fine letter from Mr. Richler, it was not intended as a defense of atheism, but a fair clarification of Einstein's beliefs.

... As ever, to truly come to know God, is not the fruit of discussion and debate, but a gift of the mysterious movement of grace...
July 25, 2007 7:48 PM

, someone should answer to that... maybe I'm too thick to get it , or to reactionary not to feel insulted, but seriously...

"to truly come to know God, is not the fruit of discussion and debate, but a gift of the mysterious movement of grace..."

pseudo babble like that piss me off... so much... feel like shaking they guy and scream, what the hell you mean by that!!!???

do you even know what you are saying!??

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

11. Comment #58787 by monoape on July 26, 2007 at 6:02 am

Chuckle. I've just engaged in a 'lively' email conversation with Barbara, and she's one of those people for whom inconvenient things like 'evidence' and 'reality' won't shake her from her belief.

Despite the absolute clarity of Einstein's statements regarding his lack of belief in any deity or religion, Barbara seems to be clinging on to one sound bite from Albert - "God doesn't play at dice". That's it. That's enough for her to be certain that Einstein is on The God Team.

Also, her religious views are definitely of the 'a la carte' variety. She asserts that 'god' is a straw man set up by atheists to mock the religious. I'm not making this up, folks!

Other Comments by monoape

12. Comment #58809 by Jack Rawlinson on July 26, 2007 at 7:36 am

I know Richard is in favour of the "Brights" thing: I am not - even though I do think that atheists who have considered their position are generally smarter than religious believers. It just seems a tactical error, to me. Still, it's one of those areas of minor disagreement that we atheists can have fun debating. We're not going to declare each other heretics for disagreeing, are we? :-)

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

13. Comment #58812 by Quetzalcoatl on July 26, 2007 at 8:00 am

Nobody is a heretic as long as they agree with everything I say :)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

14. Comment #58813 by _J_ on July 26, 2007 at 8:07 am

monoape, 11

Barbara seems to be clinging on to one sound bite from Albert - "God doesn't play at dice". That's it. That's enough for her to be certain that Einstein is on The God Team.

It's amazing, isn't it? If Babs is using the 'If I take this quote out of context, it can mean whatever I want it to' game, she ought to be made aware that Dawkins could, in complete consistency with his position, say 'Fairies don't play dice'. 'Playing dice' is an activity for which existence is prerequisite.

Also, her religious views are definitely of the 'a la carte' variety. She asserts that 'god' is a straw man set up by atheists to mock the religious. I'm not making this up, folks!

Shame you can't send an e-slap, isn't it? Some people are in serious need.

Other Comments by _J_

15. Comment #58814 by Bonzai on July 26, 2007 at 8:09 am

the.atheist wrote:

Why can't people like Barbara read the whole book, and not just small snippets that are not perfect?

If the Bible was treated in the same way, then it'd be dead.

Actually reading a small snippet is exactly how most Christians read the bible. If they read the whole book they will be appalled, not to mention getting completely confused by the contradicting messages therein.

A friend of mine once taught a sociology course in a university where a lot of his students were Christians. The topic was pornography. Most students in his class thought pornography oughted to be banned. He listened to them moralizing and just nodded. The next class he showed up with biblical passages and read them to his students without telling them they were from the bible,--he changed some of the names of the characters so that they didn't sound "biblical". Afterwords he asked his students for their opinions. The Christian brigade denounced the passages as immoral and that they should be X rated. He then smiled and told them they were from the bible. No one believed him.

Other Comments by Bonzai

16. Comment #58820 by CJ22 on July 26, 2007 at 8:27 am

"He then smiled and told them they were from the bible. No one believed him."

I hope he whacked them over the head with the damned thing and told them to go read it.

Other Comments by CJ22

17. Comment #58846 by Greybishop on July 26, 2007 at 11:49 am

Long time lurker, first time poster.

monoape -
I too just engaged Ms. Kay in an e-mail exchange.

My favourite (note the Canadian spelling) part of her response was her assertion that "Faith and reason are totally compatible."

Um...no.

In the article she mentions "Secular faith" and "Anti-religious faith" and I have asked for (and have not received) definitions of these concepts, as they completely baffle me.

Richler's response touches on a couple of the points I used in my e-mail with her, and his celebrity status makes him more difficult for her to dismiss than I.

She reminded me that there were intellectual giants who were men of faith in whose shadow I am not fit to stand. I suggested that she wouldn't have called my intellect into question had I monosyllabically agreed with her postition. Stunningly, she had no response to that.

I did my best to engage her in honest and open debate, but after one long e-mail, her second response degenerated into nothing more than "Atheists annoy us and should stop rocking the boat since they have it so good."

So much for that. I just thought that folks around here might like to know that a few of us (fruitfully, it seems) did try...

Other Comments by Greybishop

18. Comment #58847 by Greybishop on July 26, 2007 at 11:50 am

Make that "fruitlessly".

So much for a great entrance.

Other Comments by Greybishop

19. Comment #58854 by Smith on July 26, 2007 at 12:17 pm

I'm curious what she says in her first (long) email, Greybishop. Care to share?

Other Comments by Smith

20. Comment #58861 by Greybishop on July 26, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Smith -
I can post it, but you're going to need a roll cage for your eyeballs.

I'd hate to be accused of taking her out of context, so perhaps it would be appropriate to post the whole exchange?

Other Comments by Greybishop

21. Comment #58868 by monoape on July 26, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Greybishop,

Sounds like we had a similar ride with Ms. Kay: one of her opening gambits was to question my intellect.

She also used the 'appeal to authority' fallacious argument. I suggested that "just because I can do 20 one-armed push-ups doesn't mean I'm a reliable reference for trigonometry". Don't think she got it.

"So much for a great entrance." lol. :)

Other Comments by monoape

22. Comment #58878 by Greybishop on July 26, 2007 at 1:52 pm

I wouldn't expect that she did.

I'm looking forward to checking my e-mail when I get home to see if she responded a third time.

Like most believers, Ms. Kay comes across as being very surprised that we have suddenly become so uppity. She longs for the good old days when atheists kept their mouths shut about their lack of faith and nobody challenged anyone else's beliefs. I'm pretty sure that she was wearing ruby slippers back then...

Would anyone other than Smith be interested in reading Ms. Kay's arguements? I don't want to clog up the board with it if no one is interested. Perhaps I could post it off site or in the forums?

I was actually really jazzed that she responded the first time, despite the fact that she was pretty much the typical angry theist in her response. It was at least a real attempt to respond (very selectively) to some of my points. I spent a while crafting my response to her response and ended up writing a pretty long piece. I got back a single paragraph. Sigh.

Other Comments by Greybishop

23. Comment #58886 by gr8hands on July 26, 2007 at 2:22 pm

If you want to make a fundie gasp, have them read Ezekiel 23:20 "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

I was going to teach a 6-week course "Everything you think you know about the bible is wrong" featuring passages from the scriptures that most people have clearly never read. However, I was talked out of it by my partner.

Other Comments by gr8hands

24. Comment #59000 by jaydon64 on July 26, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Hey Greybishop im interested in reading Ms. Kay's arguments if they can be called that.

Other Comments by jaydon64

25. Comment #59010 by Beachbum on July 27, 2007 at 12:36 am

I can post it, but you're going to need a roll cage for your eyeballs.

That is good, very good.

Damn, more safety equipment - first it was the helmet (prevents damage from banging ones head on the desk), next came the bandanna(so I can keep my hair), then I got myself a bungee cord (rolling desk chair and wood floors) and let us not forget the all important seat belt (sometimes that bungee cord works to well).

Yea, I would be very interested in knowing more about the mind of the opposition, even Barbra Kay.

I know, lets start a forum for posting emails from authors. We can do this in B.K.'s honour and call it "Picking Apart Piety" or PAP Smear for short, uh, too harsh.

Other Comments by Beachbum

26. Comment #59012 by Beachbum on July 27, 2007 at 12:53 am

Oops, let give credit where credit is due. Greybishop, that was a very good comment and quote. Can I use it ALOT.

monoape; please post your response from BK as well, if you like, we can pick'em apart - uh I mean compare them.

You know how us intellectually stunted, Atheists rarely warrant clear concise responses to our questions.

And as for me... I have got to stop laughing and typing at the same time.

Other Comments by Beachbum

27. Comment #59088 by Greybishop on July 27, 2007 at 9:00 am

I like "Picking Apart Piety"! I'd ditch the "smear" and use "PAP" in this way:

Pap
(Noun)
1. soft food for infants or invalids, as bread soaked in water or milk.
2. an idea, talk, book, or the like, lacking substance or real value.

Other Comments by Greybishop

28. Comment #59090 by JoyOfLife on July 27, 2007 at 9:14 am

Greybishop,
My cage is ready. I would love to read the exchange. Please post.

Other Comments by JoyOfLife

29. Comment #59095 by ThomasB on July 27, 2007 at 9:47 am

Here's my brief exchange with Barbara Kay, for what it's worth.

I share my views with Barbara...

Subject: Einstein's spirituality and Stephen Harper's religiosity

Hello Barbara,

My reply to Daniel Richler would perhaps have more appropriately followed your original piece.
__________________________________

Thank you, Daniel Richler, for responding to Barbara Kay's demeaning mischaracterization of Albert Einstein's spirituality.

As for this average atheist, I can't claim any sense of feeling "violated" or "abused" when our Prime Minister panders to the pious with his "God Bless Canada" bumper sticker slogan.

I do, however, pause in wonder at what these words mean to Stephen Harper, and of the privilege afforded to God-speak in our culture.

How would Canadians respond if he voiced an appeal to Sedna, Nanabush, Apollo or any other, equally plausible, supernatural entity? And just why would any good Christian petition his maker to bless only people of a certain nationality?

I'm reminded of the "humbly bowed" football fans in the Bible Belt praying to Jesus for a home team win.

Barbara misses the point and insults my faculties...

I must say I get the oddest letters from people. Would a Roman or Greek of 200 BC say God bless us? No, since he was not a Jew. He would say Apollo bless us or whatever. What's in your head? One is from a certain culture, one invokes a blessing that is traditional to that culture. Hello, anyone home there? Honestly, I am slack-jawed with bewilderment at the average person's sense of logic in this country. And you probably think you are using your "reason"? If you are the average atheist, uh oh...

I answer Barbara...

Hello Barbara,

Thank you for your reply.

Perhaps my comment was too subtle. Humans do indeed invoke blessings from the god(s)/goddess (es)/spirits peculiar to their sect; however, to an unindoctrinated ear, invocations of God, Allah, Vishnu, Thor and Isis all sound equally (in)appropriate and (im)plausible.

But sooner or later, each culture fades and its gods are relegated to the musty cabinet of mythology. There is no reason to believe a different fate awaits the God(s) of the Abrahamic religions. If this is what you are conceding, then isn't this a point for my side, i.e., that we invent our own god(s)?

Barbara does not respond

Other Comments by ThomasB

30. Comment #59103 by Greybishop on July 27, 2007 at 10:22 am

Thanks monoape!

I have posted (it's waaay long) my exchange with her at the forums under "Picking Apart Piety".

As I state in the article, I didn't acquit myself as well as I might have liked, but it was an interesting exchange.

Thanks to Beachbum for the inspired choice of title.

Other Comments by Greybishop

31. Comment #59140 by ridelo on July 27, 2007 at 2:31 pm

If I remember well 'gay' was originally an abusive term for a homosexual and not at all coined by homosexuals themselves.
Maybe it was a better idea if atheists called themselves something like 'heretics'. The saved ones would then not be obliged to call themselves 'dims'...

Other Comments by ridelo

32. Comment #59142 by Greybishop on July 27, 2007 at 2:40 pm

To (probably for the thousandth time on this site)paraphrase Sam Harris and others, why do we need a word at all? There's no special word for people who don't believe in astrology.

Other Comments by Greybishop

33. Comment #59143 by JoyOfLife on July 27, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Great idea Ridelo,
I vote for heretic - heck even atheist is still a great word because it makes people cringe. I like to say it proudly. Also, I have tried to make a point of not saying "TGIF" or "Oh My God!!" It is more fun to substitute god with other gods and make people think about how arbitrary whatever god they are believing is and how relative it is to the time and place in which they live. TGIZ or Oh My Zeus! works. My mom loves to say "Oh my Santa!"

Other Comments by JoyOfLife

34. Comment #59144 by Greybishop on July 27, 2007 at 2:49 pm

JoyOfLife -
It could be a game.
Every time you would normally say "Oh my 'God'", you could substitute a different deity. Given the sheer volume of mythological gods created in the history of humanity, one could probably go years without repeating one...

Other Comments by Greybishop

35. Comment #59146 by JoyOfLife on July 27, 2007 at 3:14 pm

No doubt Greybishop,
It could also be very educational and a chance for people to come up with the most obscure gods/godesses from the past. Let's start the revolution!

Other Comments by JoyOfLife

36. Comment #59147 by Greybishop on July 27, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Thanks to Stargate SG-1, I got a bunch!

Oh my Hathor!

Oh my Apophis!

Oh my Baal! (And that one works on a bunch of levels...even as a plural!)

Oh my Loki!

Oh my Thor!

And you can do combinations! Oh my Thor Baal!

Other Comments by Greybishop

37. Comment #59149 by Greybishop on July 27, 2007 at 3:40 pm

There's also:

Oh my Ra!

and

Oh my Knut!

Leading to the inevitable Oh my Ra Knut!

Other Comments by Greybishop

38. Comment #59152 by Northern Bright on July 27, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Then there's

Feng-Du (Provided you face in the right direction)
Baba-Yaga (So much cuter than the grown-up Yagas)
Cocomama (Yes please)
Chernobog (Stomach upset caused by radiation leak)
Bota-Ili (What happens when you get Chernobog)
Batara-Kala (Shaken not stirred, and hold the ice.)
Mama-Pacha (And don't forget Papa-Pacha and Baby-Pacha too)
Ahura-Mazda (Everyone's driving one these days)
Bumba (When you fall over whilst trying a Latin American dance)
Me (No really. HONESTLY. There was a Mesopotamian god called "Me". What are you looking at me like that for?)

:-)

Other Comments by Northern Bright

39. Comment #59154 by Greybishop on July 27, 2007 at 4:07 pm

More great combos:

Oh my Mama-Pacha Baal!

Oh my Me Thor Bumba!

Other Comments by Greybishop

40. Comment #59155 by Northern Bright on July 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Oh my Me Thor Bumba!

That's what people say when they get Bota-ili after a nasty case of Chernobog.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

41. Comment #59161 by _J_ on July 27, 2007 at 5:07 pm

ThomasB, 29

Well done! I can only applaud your calm restraint.

Other Comments by _J_

42. Comment #59162 by Greybishop on July 27, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Sorry to ThomasB -
I must've missed your handle at the top of your article!

I too applaud your restraint! I got considerably more verbose.

Other Comments by Greybishop

Reload Comments | Back to Top