Wednesday, August 15, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

by Mark Steel

Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/mark_steel/article2864172.ece

There's a modern brand of militant atheist that can appear horribly smug and superior.

Whenever there's an argument between those who claim the religious are ethically superior, and the Richard Dawkins-following fans of atheism, I want someone to bang the table and shout "Oy - you're all wrong."

For example, a column in this paper claimed, "Judaeo-Christian religion devotes itself principally to instructing its adherents in how to behave well in their dealings with others." Someone ought to try this out, and apply to be a Rabbi or the Pope by saying, "I don't really care for God, but I always give up my seat to old women on the bus. When can I start?"

Also, Judaeo-Christian religion pays some regard to the Bible, which is full of instructions to behave well, such as the one in the book of Deuteronomy, "In the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave anything alive that breathes. Otherwise you will sin against the Lord your God."

Anything that breathes? Even Hitler left it at humans. But that's not enough for the Bible, that screams, "The trouble with genocide is it's too soft. It takes no account of lizards."

Clearly most modern Christians don't go along with this, and they say the Bible isn't meant to be taken that literally. Which seems a bit of a cop-out, as it is the Bible. It's like a political party issuing this statement in a manifesto, and then when they're questioned about it saying, "Oh I wouldn't take any notice of that. It's more of a long-term goal than a commitment."

The idea that religious people are more moral or better at behaving well than atheists is hard to show. From the Spanish Inquisition to Cliff Richard they've got to make a lot of excuses. But equally, there's no clear case in blaming everything on religion. For example, the conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland was evidently about more than that. When Loyalists chucked stones into a Catholic estate they weren't thinking, "Transubstantiation my arse."

Because it's not ideas that drive actions such as these, it's circumstances. There have been few religious ideas that, on the face of it, are more batty than the beliefs of the Nation of Islam. If they're right, then apparently white people were all bred by an evil doctor on an island over a period of thousands of years, and there's a flying saucer involved as well. But when seen in context, from the point of view of black people angry at segregated, lynch-happy America, the devils theory could make sense.

Similarly, modern Islam is shaped by events in Palestine and Iraq, which has led millions of Muslims to conclude that Western governments have got it in for them. If you start from the point that circumstances drive ideas, then as a non-Muslim you can engage with Muslims in discussing how to deal with George Bush's Project for the American Century.

If you start from the point of view that all religion is nutty, you've got nothing more to say to a Muslim than, "How can a mountain move, you idiot?"

There's a modern brand of militant atheist that can appear horribly smug and superior. It's an attitude that can be summed up as, "Aren't religious people stupid? All over Africa they're stupid, and the Middle-East. And the Romans, believing in all those two-headed animals, the morons. Aristotle with his unmoved moving God, as if. Descartes, Isaac Newton, Bob Marley, they all fell for it. In fact everyone who ever lived up to about 1800, and most people since then have been stupid stupid stupid."

Or worse, there's these patronising stuck-up columns that go, "Aren't these Afghan peasants awful? I mean, I took the trouble to read Voltaire and Hume at university so why can't they? Their sexual politics is frankly shocking, and there's no excuse these days because with the internet they could order Armistead Maupin novels on Amazon and they'd be out to the caves of Tora Bora within a fortnight. I think the time has come for decent mountain tribes to say to these sexist types if they don't change their ways they won't be invited to any dinner parties or any openings of art galleries."

There's always a rational basis to the irrationality of religion, and however bizarre, religious ideas usually reflect the reality of people's lives.

So the Christianity of a Mexican landless peasant takes a different form from the Christianity of Tony Blair. In a just and fair world, these ideas would be no more harmful than the irrational following people have for football teams. Maybe they'd even be more relaxed about people taking the piss, with other religions allowed into the away end of the temple, where they could chant, "Who ate all the wafers?"; "You're damned - and you know you are"; and "Can you hear the Trappists sing - I can't hear a thing."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 56 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #63584 by AdrianB on August 15, 2007 at 2:13 am

He has a point, although many here (myself included) will take issue with the use of the term militant.

I'm not trying to convert people, I'm just one of those POF (pissed off faithless). People are free to believe what they like, as long as they leave me alone and as long as their faith is not negative to society as a whole. Unfortunately this is not the case.

I like Mark Steel, and I would guess that he is a non-religious chap, so to hear him use the term militant atheist concerns me. The way I see it the only way we can avoid being called "militant" is to shut up.

I would like to take Mark Steel and Marcus Brigstocke out for a pint!

Other Comments by AdrianB

2. Comment #63586 by Jiten on August 15, 2007 at 2:22 am

In a just and fair world, these ideas would be no more harmful than the irrational following people have for football teams.

Good point.

For those who haven't heard of Mark Steel,he is a comedian and his articles are meant to make you laugh whilst making serious points.

Other Comments by Jiten

3. Comment #63591 by GBile on August 15, 2007 at 2:50 am

In fact everyone who ever lived up to about 1800, and most people since then have been stupid stupid stupid.

Not so, mr Steel, there is a difference between being stupid and being 'ignorant'.

Now, how shall we call a present-day 'Young Earth Protestant Creationist' ?

Other Comments by GBile

4. Comment #63592 by Thor on August 15, 2007 at 2:59 am

Well, yes, maybe so. However, religions do on occasion take it upon themselves to define what is "just and fair", don't they?
Which is more often than not part of the problem...

Other Comments by Thor

5. Comment #63594 by epicure on August 15, 2007 at 3:19 am

There's a modern brand of militant atheist that can appear horribly smug and superior.

Jascha Heifetz wasn't far wrong when he said:
"No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other."

Other Comments by epicure

6. Comment #63595 by Canuck#1 on August 15, 2007 at 3:28 am

I am not sure that the phrase "irrational football fans" really captures the essence of what football fans are....restraunts with signs saying "No football buses allowed"....visitng fans being seated in a separate section protected by barricades and police and leaving the stadium after home fans have disappeared....films of fights, beatings, riots....however given the hatred, violence and verbal condemnation associated with religion maybe the comparison to fotball works.

Other Comments by Canuck#1

7. Comment #63597 by Peacebeuponme on August 15, 2007 at 3:39 am

I like Mark Steel, he's a good guy. You should check out his "Mark Steel Lectures".

The article above however, does unfortunately tread tired ground and mischaracterises the atheist position. I certainly wouldn't call all religious people stupid. As much as I disagree with, for example, the fuzzy arguments of McGrath when it comes to god, he is clearly a pretty intelligent guy.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

8. Comment #63603 by CJ22 on August 15, 2007 at 3:55 am

In a just and fair world, these ideas would be no more harmful than the irrational following people have for football teams.

Ponders the images of football fans beating the crap out of each other and uninvolved passers-by, and wonders if Mark has thought this through.

Other Comments by CJ22

9. Comment #63605 by mmurray on August 15, 2007 at 4:04 am

For those who haven't heard of Mark Steel,he is a comedian and his articles are meant to make you laugh whilst making serious points.

Didn't work for me.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

10. Comment #63609 by hungarianelephant on August 15, 2007 at 4:32 am

Or worse, there's these patronising stuck-up columns that go, "Aren't these Afghan peasants awful? I mean, I took the trouble to read Voltaire and Hume at university so why can't they? Their sexual politics is frankly shocking, and there's no excuse these days because with the internet they could order Armistead Maupin novels on Amazon and they'd be out to the caves of Tora Bora within a fortnight. I think the time has come for decent mountain tribes to say to these sexist types if they don't change their ways they won't be invited to any dinner parties or any openings of art galleries."

At the risk of nit-picking an article which makes some good points, that's not what most of these columns argue at all. It's not about "them". It's about "us" - and whether we are prepared to confront the mediaevalism in our own back yard.

If a 15 year old British girl was kidnapped in her home, taken to France and raped, there would be hell to pay if the authorities didn't attempt to secure her return and extradite the perpetrator. But if it's Pakistan and the kidnappers are her family, and there's an enforced marriage thrown into the mix, then oh no, we mustn't tread on cultural sensitivities. This is racism, pure and simple. It assumes that those with the misfortune to be born into such families have fewer rights than every other citizen, and that those responsible are excused because they cannot be expected to conform with the rules of decent society.

If pointing this out makes me a militant atheist, smug and superior, then I'll wear it as a badge of honour.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

11. Comment #63610 by d4m14n on August 15, 2007 at 4:34 am

Comment #63607 by Beth

If being a 'militant atheist' means no longer tolerating the hatred, bigotry, and misogyny of religion - please call me militant.

What she said.

Other Comments by d4m14n

12. Comment #63611 by Prufrock on August 15, 2007 at 4:42 am

I'm sorry to be so slow, but I'm not really sure I understand what Mark Steel is getting at. Is he saying that religious belief is inextricably bound in with the circumstances of our lives? If this is so then what does that have to do with the truth value of belief? Is he saying that religion is some kind of coping mechanism for the disenfranchised and economically, politically, socially dominated, while at the same time, form the basis of a brave new world for the economically, politically and socially dominant? If this is so does a belief in a supernatural deity somehow provide the constructive energies needed to resolve the many difficult, but pragmatic, problems these people face in asserting dominance and dealing with the effects of that dominance? Why not call stuff what they are rather than invoke an impossible and imaginary mischief maker to make life easier or justify psychotic behaviour? Why not simply take responsibility for what you think? Please excuse me if I don't get his humour, but just because something is apparently reasonable, does not mean it actually says anything of the sort. The issue is truth. The method is rationality and the unpleasant to be repelled is superstition, irrespective of circumstance. A believe in the juju under the sea, to use an example from Prof Dawkins, does not mean that reality is going to change, when perhaps rationality will lead to the much needed changes in circumstance and fortune. We all have to obey the laws of physics whether we believe in them or not and wearing religion as a kind of badge to show your social status does not strike me as having any meaning or practical value. I have yet to come across this brand of atheism; and I think it is useful to remember that it is ideas which have not been evidenced, experienced or verified which are under attack and not the people who hold them. There is never a rational basis for an irrational belief, just perhaps an excuse or justification. Sorry for not getting it.

Other Comments by Prufrock

13. Comment #63612 by Corylus on August 15, 2007 at 4:42 am

Mark Steel wrote:

Because it's not ideas that drive actions such as these, it's circumstances.

Actually, it's both.

Yes, it is daft to say that without religion we would all be wandering about in tie-dye fabrics and singing folk songs.

However, it is also daft to say that:

...in a just and fair world, these ideas would be no more harmful than the irrational following people have for football teams.

This is just another version of the simplistic wishful thinking that he is pointing out above.

The fact is that some people, in fact alot of people, simply aren't very nice. Humans are prone to all kind of vile and unforgivable actions like murder, violence, warmongering and leaving their phones on in the cinema.

What religion does is amplify the problem. What is does give the out-group hostility; to which we are all prone; a dreadful intractable legitimacy. N.B. It also divides within groups (e.g. treatment of women and homosexuals).

Bottom line, religion provides a specific and respected basis for (some!) people to make denigrating statements concerning the worth of others.

If religion disappeared overnight, we would doubtless still kill and main each other for a variety of causes, however, we would how one less reason and one less excuse for doing so.

Other Comments by Corylus

14. Comment #63613 by Crazymalc on August 15, 2007 at 4:59 am

This guy is funny. I like him.

"The trouble with genocide is it's too soft. It takes no account of lizards."

"From the Spanish Inquisition to Cliff Richard they've got to make a lot of excuses."

Other Comments by Crazymalc

15. Comment #63614 by n0rr1s on August 15, 2007 at 5:02 am

Mark says that many atheists are "smug and superior". That's ironic, because while I've often found Mark to be interesting and entertaining, on the few occassions he is wrong, the tone he uses causes him to appear to me in just that way. I have the same issue with Penn and Teller in one or two of their BS shows. And I think that Mark is wrong here.

First, I can't really speak for other atheists, but I do not think that religious people are stupid. I think that religious people are being stupid about religion. There is a big difference. I have observed that people can be extremely smart about one thing, while being considerably less than smart about another, even if the two things appear closely related. I know I have this failing.

Also, I think that few atheists are so blind to conditions around the world that they think that people in the grip of poverty are being ignorant by not having read, say, Voltaire.

And I disagree that "there's always a rational basis to the irrationality of religion". Sure, the religious will shape their faith somewhat based on the situation they have to deal with. And much of the muslim world has legitimate greivances with the west because of, say, the actions of GWB. But Mark seems to be using this to suggest that all religion is based on the prevailing conditions in people's lives, and therefore that it is rational. I say that religions are still based on texts that are thousands of years old, and there's only so much interpretation that one can do, only so much leeway that the texts allow. Religions were not invented because of today's conditions, and their tenets mostly do not reflect today's conditions. I do not think that they are rational.

Other Comments by n0rr1s

16. Comment #63615 by ericcolumba on August 15, 2007 at 5:12 am

Mark Steel is an intelligent quick witted and charismatic individual. I would recommend looking at his BBC lecture series on you tube.

However, as a member of George Galloway's Respect Party it comes as no surprise that he downplays the dangers of religion. Especially since this party draws its support not only from the left but from British Muslims whose main motivation is the perceived persecution of fellow muslims by infidels(including the evil Jew).

Unlike Galloway Steel is an Atheist but he comes under the category of "I'm an Atheist but". Those who think that it while they don't believe in such superstitious nonsense it is somehow ok for others to do so. An arrogant point of view in my opinion. Also, I suspect that Mr Steel and his ilk are reluctant to admit that they might have been downplaying the role of religion in the middle east conflict. They have been out thought by Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins.
So how do the left react? Well, it would appear rather than evolve/reassess their firmly held political beliefs they mock.

Other Comments by ericcolumba

17. Comment #63616 by faouloki on August 15, 2007 at 5:22 am

I like Mark Steel but this article is very sloppy. He doesn't seem to know what point he is trying to make, and it seems that whilst he wants to agree with the atheists, he also doesn't want to lose face with the religious and so ends up offending them all and isolating himself.
He also is making old, tired arguments which have been discussed to death.

Other Comments by faouloki

18. Comment #63618 by Russell Blackford on August 15, 2007 at 5:32 am

This Mark Steel bloke certainly comes out with a lot of dumb, trite observations for someone who is so smart (according to some of you above ... I'd never heard of him, myself). I can see how some of it might have been mildly funny if it had been fresh and original, but it could almost be a pastiche of sooo many others that make similar points, seemingly based more on what Dawkins, etc., somehow must be like than on any fair reading of what they actually say.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

19. Comment #63619 by hungarianelephant on August 15, 2007 at 5:36 am

On the "rational basis for irrationality" thing, I have to agree with Mark Steel up to a point.

If you look at something like the Ten Commandments, they make a whole lot more sense once you realise that Moses was leading a small desert tribe of maybe 800 individuals. It even states the purpose explicitly: "Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you." Adultery may often be socially damaging, but in a group that small it is likely to undermine trust not just in your spouse but in the whole group you depend upon. Coveting your neighbour's ox is a serious problem in a tiny, closed economy, and positively beneficial to a large capitalist society. I can even see the sense in pretending that these commandments came from God rather than trying to live with the anarchy of free thought which we now think of as essential to our well-being.

What most religions have managed to do is reform and reinterpret, which is a piece of cake when there is so much vagueness and contradictory nonsense in the original texts. In Victorian times, the whole Jesus story was shamelessly revised to turn a Jewish revolutionary into a gentle teacher, while over time most of the parts of the Bible which didn't work any more were simply forgotten.

It all goes horribly wrong when ideas from 3000 or 2000 or 1300 years ago are transplanted into a modern setting as if they were eternal truths i.e. fundamentalism. That is not a "rational basis" for irrationality. It is a "once-rational basis" and it needs to be dealt with.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

20. Comment #63621 by BAEOZ on August 15, 2007 at 5:40 am

Seems like he's too clever by half. Not sure he had a point, except that by setting up a strawman that "new atheists" think everybody is dumb so then he can treat us the same a believers in shared silliness and knock us all down in one hit. Who's the smug boy then?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

21. Comment #63622 by AdrianB on August 15, 2007 at 5:47 am

If he is to believe in his own logic, then Mark Steel can only conclude that he too is a "militant atheist" or a "militant whatever" since he is a very vocal chap, always telling people how to believe.

Other Comments by AdrianB

22. Comment #63623 by AJ Rae on August 15, 2007 at 5:48 am

The Mark Steel Lectures are brilliant. I think he's creating a strawman here. He seems to come from a position of ignorance, and have a sentimentality towards religion, much like David Baddiel.

Richard Dawkins does mention in his book he realises, giving Northern Ireland as an example, that other factors are involved. He also strongly states that religion isn't the only problem in the world. He doesn't think people are stupid, just ignorant, or mistaken, a delusion that can affect the most intelligent.

Mark Steel, like a lot of the Left, only focus on circumstance. Football fanaticism is a very good example of how irrationalism can turn nasty. In Football, the stakes aren't high, in the god game, they're high. Yet people have died from being a fan of the wrong football team.

Other Comments by AJ Rae

23. Comment #63625 by pewkatchoo on August 15, 2007 at 5:58 am

Nothing much to add to what has already gone before. Hungarianelephant sums up my position.

Mark Steel is unfunny. Sorry.

Profrock: "take responsibility for what you think!" Excellent.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

24. Comment #63627 by Ick of the East on August 15, 2007 at 6:11 am

Smug and superior are we? As opposed to those who believe that they have a close personal relationship with the all-powerful creator of the universe, with whom they will live in bliss for all eternity as a reward for their correct beliefs.

Right.

Other Comments by Ick of the East

25. Comment #63628 by IanG on August 15, 2007 at 6:11 am

I enjoyed this.

It seems to me that we can structure our societies according either to how we feel humans really are, or to how we feel they ought to be.

In the former group we have western-style liberal democracies that are broadly based on the ideas of people like John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith and others. These societies follow a thought process that is something like, "Given human nature and its context, if we want to maximise the possibility of living happy, fulfilling lives, then we need the following sorts of principles to guide how we treat one another. Then we will have established a robust process to cope with the reality of perpetual change."

In the latter we have theocracies, some of which are secular. Fascism, Communism, The Holy Roman Empire and the Islamic State are all theocracies. These societies follow a thought process something like, "Given the known utopian state of existence, and the obstruction posed to its attainment by current human imperfection, if we want to achieve this utopian state, then we need the following sorts of rules and controls to eradicate bad human thinking and behaviour. Then we will have achieved the end of History and we shall have unchanging perfection, (Heaven), on Earth."

Mark Steel is simply reminding us that we, as individuals, can decide which of the two societies above we want to sound in support of, when we engage our mouths and pens.

He is correct when he suggests that sometimes, some secular humanists speak with a scorn for other people that sounds like, "Our views are clearly so right and tolerant that it's about time everyone had the right to be made to believe what we do or to be seen as brainless idiots, who only warrant contempt."

All movements will have a range of adherents and supporters. Steel is just reminding us how it looks from a different viewpoint.

It's not just religion.

Think back to earlier years of feminism, (a movement which I support). Extreme feminists said things about men, including boy children and even new-born boy babies, that rivalled the Old Testament and would have got anyone else put in prison. The more extreme they were, the more they were praised by parts of the movement.

Where have we heard that before?

We need to take our cause seriously but we really need to beware of taking ourselves too seriously.

Other Comments by IanG

26. Comment #63629 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 6:11 am

hungarianelephant: "This is racism, pure and simple. It assumes that those with the misfortune to be born into such families have fewer rights than every other citizen, and that those responsible are excused because they cannot be expected to conform with the rules of decent society."

Couldn't agree more!

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

27. Comment #63632 by Jack Rawlinson on August 15, 2007 at 6:19 am

I have a lot of time for Mark Steel, so it's a shame to see him indulging in lazy straw men at the end of this piece. I don't know any modern atheist who sneers at Afghan peasants or pre-enlightenment people for ignorance which is not their fault. For Steel to suggest such an attitude is common amongst atheists is simply dishonesty in pursuit of a cheap laugh. He's usually better than that.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

28. Comment #63636 by MrEmpirical on August 15, 2007 at 7:02 am

No! The atheists are acting smug and superior!

Make it stop!

MAKE IT STOP!!! ARRGGGHHHH!!!!!

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

29. Comment #63638 by danceswithanxiety on August 15, 2007 at 7:13 am

If you start from the point of view that all religion is nutty, you've got nothing more to say to a Muslim than, "How can a mountain move, you idiot?"

That's a good start but that's hardly all there is to be said. Insist that the Muslim try harder for answers. Insist that he/she pull his nose up from the prayer rug and read a few more books, talk to a few more people, engage some fresh thinking. Good answers will come by this route, whereas the Koran has already given its answers, and they range from irrelevant to false to monstrous.

Other Comments by danceswithanxiety

30. Comment #63640 by Moridin on August 15, 2007 at 7:23 am

The problem with this argument is that religion serves as a much stronger identifier than a mere football club.

When the animosities between Manchester United and Real Madrid have been active for 2000+ years with hundred of thousands of deaths on both sides because the different clubs makes incompatible and unsupported metaphysical claims, then we can talk.

Other Comments by Moridin

31. Comment #63647 by wolf1168 on August 15, 2007 at 7:38 am

IanG that is probable one of the most succinct description I have ever heard. I think I'll pass that along to a couple of polysci teachers I know.

Other Comments by wolf1168

32. Comment #63648 by bitbutter on August 15, 2007 at 7:47 am

Weak stuff

This is a false dichotomy. How are the ideas that a scripturally inspired murderer has about the universe _not_ part of his set of circumstances?

Other Comments by bitbutter

33. Comment #63649 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 7:54 am

"This is a false dichotomy. How are the ideas that a scripturally inspired murderer has about the universe _not_ part of his set of circumstances?"

Exactly. When it is written in the Koran, for exmaple, "kill all infidels" is it not this 'idea' that drives the actions?

Or by circumstance does Steel mean that the ideas have been taken 'literally' or 'abused'?

Even so, it is because people take the 'holy' words so seriously and with such dedicated passion which leads them to strap C4 to themselves and blow up a take out a bus.

There is no way to claim that the ideas themselves are harmless when it is written in the text to carry out these ihumane actions.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

34. Comment #63651 by BicycleRepairMan on August 15, 2007 at 8:05 am

and there's no excuse these days because with the internet they could order Armistead Maupin novels on Amazon and they'd be out to the caves of Tora Bora within a fortnight

Does this lack of communication to arguably large parts of the world mean we should just sit back an not say anything? If we held the same standard when we discovered germs, an argument against washing your hands might be: "Alot of people doesnt have access to clean water?"

There is really no excuse not to keep the world updated on scientific progress and break down these ancient superstitions. 150 years from now, Afghanistan might be among the worlds richest countries, and that Tora-Bora peasants grandson may sit at a coffee-shop in Kabuls hottest shopping district, counting the passing mini-skirts.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

35. Comment #63653 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 8:16 am

Circumstances, and ideas about those circumstances. The ideas remain important. Getting the ideas straight is a necessary but insufficient condition for peace.

I am worried about the frequent attacks upon the style or personality of atheists - the accusations of being smug, superior, elitist, fundamentalist, narrow minded, and so on. It's not my ego I'm worried about. I'm not so thinned skin that I take offense at general digs in the media made by people who know nothing about me.

I'm most worried by how these comments trivialize the arguments put forward now by atheists. It's a fact of human psychology, that you can ignore a message once you've shot the messenger. Works like a charm most of the time.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

36. Comment #63655 by heathen2 on August 15, 2007 at 8:40 am

It seems from his comments that Mr. Steel himself is "smug and superior" in his attitude toward believers.

Other Comments by heathen2

37. Comment #63656 by Dax on August 15, 2007 at 8:42 am

Or worse, there's these patronising stuck-up columns that go, "Aren't these Afghan peasants awful? [...]Their sexual politics is frankly shocking, and there's no excuse these days because with the internet they could order Armistead Maupin novels on Amazon and they'd be out to the caves of Tora Bora within a fortnight. [...]"
There's always a rational basis to the irrationality of religion, and however bizarre, religious ideas usually reflect the reality of people's lives.

This is what bothers me... I taste a huge dash of cultural relativism here, and I hate that flavor of faux pas cultural guilt complex of the west. Cultural relativism only works when the cultural aspects we compare are harmless, which, in the case of those "Afghan peasants" and their "sexual politics", it is not! They don't need no damn Amazon.com ordered books to realize that Islamic sexual oppression is harmful! It is in fact religious ignorance (and thus not stupidity) that perpetuates this... a religious ignorance, which has, according to the author, a "rational basis", and "reflect the reality of people's lives".
Turn that last part around: it is not that "religious ideas usually reflect the reality of people's lives", but that the reality of people's lives reflect religious ideas, in all its harmful effects on humanity.

Other Comments by Dax

38. Comment #63659 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 8:53 am

Ah yes, Cultural Relativism..I loathe it so.

Dax,

"Turn that last part around: it is not that "religious ideas usually reflect the reality of people's lives", but that the reality of people's lives reflect religious ideas, in all its harmful effects on humanity."

I agree with you 100%. What's more is that there are people living in countries run by religion (such as Iran, Pakistan, etc) who are fed up and sick of the oppression, murder, and sexism. Neither their 'religious governments' or the Cultural Relativist apoloigists of the West represent the interests of the thousands of people subjected to a way of life forced by religion.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

39. Comment #63669 by denoir on August 15, 2007 at 9:23 am

Although I would disagree on his impressions of 'militant' atheism, I do think that he does have a point about social context. And I would argue for it from a Darwinian point of view with this hypothesis: religion can only be as bad as the society it is in.

I'm not saying that religion has evolutionary benefits for humans, but I would like to argue that it should at least be neutral in terms of natural selection. Religion may propagate for its own sake but if it starts interfering with the survival and reproduction capabilities of humans, our genes will be pruned to counteract it. Dan Dennett says that asking "What is religion good for?" is the equivalent of asking "What is the common cold good for? All humans have it at some point." I fully agree with that but I think he fails to point out that our immune system actively fights the common cold and all other unwanted replicators that can be detrimental to our health. If religion exceeded the noise threshold of the environment we would evolve defenses against it.

So I do think there is a good case to be made for religion being neutral in terms of natural selection.

I admit that in the social context, it is questionable to talk about natural selection as we are looking at extremely short time spans.

We do however have the idea-space (culture, memes or whatever you wish to call it) where selection is very fast indeed. If your culture is violent, other violent ideas can in much an easier way share the space. While people can and do hold very contradictory ideas, there is at some level at least a small amount of consistency checking. Those kinds of checks are bound to put a negative selection pressure - even if just a slight one - on incompatible ideas.

The process of changing from a superstitious, violent and dogmatic idea space to a more rational, peaceful and liberal one must be a gradual and parallel process. If you just rapidly switched one set of ideas into more rational set, the majority of the other superstitious ideas would destroy the new kid on the block. If you somehow managed to kill off religion in the Mid East, it would soon come back with a vengeance.

To transform the society gradual changes are needed on all fronts: educational, cultural, social and religious.

Other Comments by denoir

40. Comment #63670 by Tony Jackson on August 15, 2007 at 9:24 am

Who are these "militant atheists" that look down their noses at Afghan peasants?

I think many of Steel's defenders here are far too indulgent. Steel is an atheist and has happily (and deservedly) attacked the irrationalism of Christianity on film. But when it comes to Islam, Steel has a problem. I'm sure he personally doesn't believe for one minute that the Archangel Gabriel really visited Muhammad in the desert, but for grubby political reasons it's difficult for him to come straight out and say so. As ericcolumbar has pointed out, Steel is a member of George Galloway's Respect party, a bizarre marriage of convenience between SWP types and various shades of Islamist opinion. Steele can't afford to upset a major group of his party's supporters and is trapped on a hook of his own making. Let him twist.

Other Comments by Tony Jackson

41. Comment #63677 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 10:16 am

Do the people of Tora Bora require Amazon? The message is so simple, it hardly needs a book:

Let's admit that evidence is better than faith, which is a bit like guessing.

It's been traditional to avoid examination and criticism of ideas based upon faith. But that can't continue in this world of global communication and travel. People with radically antagonistic faiths are now shoulder to shoulder. For the sake of peace, ideas based upon faith must be subject to our collective need for corroborative evidence.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

42. Comment #63688 by IanG on August 15, 2007 at 11:30 am

I am worried about the frequent attacks upon the style or personality of atheists - the accusations of being smug, superior, elitist, fundamentalist, narrow minded, and so on.

I'm most worried by how these comments trivialize the arguments put forward now by atheists. It's a fact of human psychology, that you can ignore a message once you've shot the messenger.

I agree. It's certainly a growing issue, Dr Benway.

I've got a rather different take on this article from that of many others, but I don't need to flog it to death.

However, as regards human psychology, when it comes to public reaction and messengers etc. I am personally more optimistic with every day that passes.

Social studies show that group behaviour generally acts very strongly to sustain the status quo. If one or more group members starts to manifest behaviour that is new for them personally, the group moves quickly to squash it and to return the individuals' behaviour to the previous pattern.

It's one of the reasons why off-the-job behavioural training is generally not that successful on its own. Once the retrained person returns to the group and starts to behave, in the group's view, in a new way, the group will tend to put a stop to it quite quickly and without any specific insight as to why it is doing it.

We can speculate on possible evolutionary reasons for this.

The behaviour need not be new to the group, just new to the particular individual. It is about the expected role of the person within the group.

We're getting attention from the broader group of our society because we are behaving differently and in noticeable numbers. It isn't accepted as our role to question, challenge or undermine faith-based beliefs openly. We are supposed to smile, to show understanding and respect, even to defer. However moderate we are, any attempt that we make to play out a new role will be seen as disturbing and to be stopped.

I think we should be heartened. I think the reactions we are getting are intended to stuff us back into our previous role. The increasing strength of the reaction is probably a good surrogate marker for the increasing threat that we are perceived to pose.

We are being paid the compliment of being taken seriously.

The snowball is already too big to stop, but the ride may get rather bumpier in the short-term.

There's a couplet in the song, "Biko":

"You can blow out a candle but you can't blow out a fire;
Once the flame begins to catch, a wind will blow it higher."

As I said at the start I don't need to do the interpretation of the article to death, but isn't Steel saying that there appear to be some fundamentalist atheists emerging? If so, are we really saying that there is no evidence or other good reason for thinking that may be true? Snotty, bigoted people occupy all walks of life. If they exist we should speak out rather than give them cover.

I do agree that there will be those who think we're all the same, just as there are those who believe all Muslims want us dead but, by and large, I'm quite enjoying the fact that, thanks to Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Stenger et al, we are now seriously on the radar!

As a partially relevant aside, rather than your own comments, the suggestion that this is a contest between us as the Brights and the others as the Faith-heads may go pretty much unremarked upon, apart from amongst the cognoscenti, right now, but it may prove a hostage to fortune in the future, as the profile both of this debate and of its protagonists gets higher.

For the sake of peace, ideas based upon faith must be subject to our collective need for corroborative evidence.

Very well put!

Other Comments by IanG

43. Comment #63692 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 12:37 pm

IanG:

As I said at the start I don't need to do the interpretation of the article to death, but isn't Steel saying that there appear to be some fundamentalist atheists emerging?

Unfortunately, the author did not give a specific example of some atheist speaking like a fundamentalist. The Tora Bora bit seems a parody of something, but I've no idea what. He says generally:

There's a modern brand of militant atheist that can appear horribly smug and superior.

From context, seems he's talking about Dawkins, Harris, et al, and us lot. We're the "modern brand." We are guilty of putting too much blame upon religion, and failing to appreciate how poverty and imperialism drive conflict.

I appreciate your point about group resistance to individual change. But I'm not sure it applies. This is a battle of ideologies, not personalities.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

44. Comment #63702 by IanG on August 15, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Dr. Benway,

Yes, I do see your point that maybe he does just mean us.

I think ideologies as pursued by people do show tendencies to go for newcomers, but I guess we need to watch what happens. History suggests that it can get pretty personal.

Regardless of this, freedom of thought and expression, applied to generating the greatest diversity of possible fact-, and evidence-, based ideas seems a good start to gaining an adaptive edge and I do think we may have some significant advantage over the opposition in this respect!

Other Comments by IanG

45. Comment #63725 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 2:31 pm

History suggests that it can get pretty personal.

If my personality comes under serious attack, I'll simply trade it in for a new one. As a Turing machine, it's no problem.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

46. Comment #63731 by IanG on August 15, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Or even a Turing machine!

Other Comments by IanG

47. Comment #63744 by sabre_truth on August 15, 2007 at 3:51 pm

I think that Mark Steel is wrongly attributing a certain kind of absolutism to the critiques of religion by Dawkins, et al. He is not alone in this perception, as evidenced by many of the "I'm an atheist, but..." criticisms of the New Atheists' arguments. The misinterpretation is principally that they are saying "Religion is the only cause of problems in the world, and other factors play no role." Related to this is the misperception that these authors claim that all religious belief, in all circumstances and contexts, is equally harmful.

I think this arises, in part, from wrongly conflating two separate claims which they are in fact making: One, that religious beliefs are unjustified from the standpoint of evidence-based rationality; and two, that these unjustified beliefs have been a major motivating factor in much destructive behavior. Certainly, argument in support of the second claim is not argument in support of the first. Whatever the consequences of religious claims may be, they have no relation to the truth value of the beliefs themselves. However, the first claim as to the irrationality of the beliefs themselves does form part of the explanation for why they are divisive and lead to those negative consequences. This connection can appear to suggest that what is being argued is that because of the inherent irrationality in religion, it leads inevitably only to harm, and in the absence of any other contributing factors.

What is perhaps responsible for this error is that the vehemence with which the New Atheists' present their claims makes them stand out within a discourse dominated by the view that religion is only incidental to the conflict and carnage with which we see it associated. These authors have chosen to emphasize the deleterious effects of religious faith largely because our discourse has by and large either denied or minimized those effects. Thus their "conversational intolerance", to use Sam Harris' phrase, appears as a simplistic pointing of fingers to religion, and religion alone, when in fact no serious argument is being made that social, historical, political, and economic factors play no role. They are simply asking us to quit giving religion a free pass, to hold it accountable for its non-negligible damaging effects.

Steel makes the mistake of misconstruing the argument as being a black-and-white religion OR other factors question, and throws in with the other factors side, even after he has acknowledged that the influence of religion has been harmful at certain times. This appears self-contradictory, and is evidence that the only real disagreement is over the degree to which various factors should be emphasized. By emphasizing the harmful effects of religion, the New Atheists are choosing to focus upon a factor which has been swept under the rug in our excessive desire to avoid offending religious sensibilities. They do not need to waste time mulling over the numerous other factors which have been and will continue to be explored elsewhere.

Other Comments by sabre_truth

48. Comment #63746 by roach on August 15, 2007 at 4:07 pm

After reading this article, I really have to take a dump.

Other Comments by roach

49. Comment #63765 by automath on August 15, 2007 at 6:27 pm

In a perverse kind of a way, Mark makes an excellent point, even though I am left with the question. Why?

I've obviously misjudged this person as someone who was capable of independent, individual and rigorous thought.

Maybe you had to put food on the table?

Other Comments by automath

50. Comment #63771 by NakedCelt on August 15, 2007 at 8:21 pm

I can see a lot of people here proving Mark's point excellently.

Is he saying Islam or Christianity is true? No. He's quite above board that religious ideas are bizarre and absurd. And dangerous. What he's saying is that attempting to change people's ideas without understanding them will achieve absolutely fuck-all.

Yes, that does include trying to convince them of the benefits of faith-free thought.

Yes, Islam causes some horrible suffering. Guess what? Many of those suffering are also Muslims. Particularly Muslim women.

The fact is, none of us have anything to say to those people that would change their views a jot. And this doesn't make them stupid.

People look at Hamas, to take one example, and say "Why on earth do Palestinians follow terrorists?" And there's an undercurrent of feeling that Hamas is somehow bullying them into submission. They're not. Hamas does charity work among Palestinians, relieving grinding poverty. People turn to them for hope.

No atheist movement will succeed in Palestine until it can say as much.

One of the things I, personally, admire greatly about Richard Dawkins is that he takes people seriously. When RD rails against religion, he seems to me to be trying to appeal to people's intelligence: the underlying message is "Surely someone as bright as you can see the problem here!"

When a lot of other people on these forums rail against religion, they seem to be berating people for their stupidity. The underlying message is "If you're too stupid see that we're right and you're wrong, you deserve only contempt."

Nobody's going to listen to that. Yes, it's a lot less vicious than what infidels get from the faithful. But it's still hostile and counter-productive.

Other Comments by NakedCelt