Print
Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield
by Lisa Miller, Newsweek
Reposted from:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/81388
More-modest voices are reclaiming the debate over faith from the bomb throwers.
You might think of 2007 as the year the atheists won. They didn't succeed in converting the 86 percent of Americans who say they believe in God into nonbelievers—but they probably weren't looking to do so anyway. With a steady stream of best sellers, starting in 2002 and culminating this year with Christopher Hitchens's "God Is Not Great," though, vociferous atheists did bring nonbelief into the public sphere. The number of people who felt comfortable enough to tell Gallup pollsters that they didn't believe in God inched up to 6 percent this year from 2 percent in 2001.
Most recently, these champions of godlessness emphatically (and correctly) argued that nonbelievers have the same rights under the Constitution as believers do. The strength of their arguments forced Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to concede the point. "Obviously in this nation our religious liberty includes the right to believe or not believe," Romney told NEWSWEEK in December, after a speech he made on religion lit up the Internet like a pinball machine. In a solid tactical maneuver, Romney had allied himself with believers of all faiths against the creep of secularism. It's a testament to the power of the atheists that he had to answer to them at all.
This victory, if you want to call it that (an overwhelming number of Americans still say they would not vote for an atheist presidential candidate), was hard won. It owed much to the loud and intransigent rhetoric of its main proponents—a reaction, perhaps, against the loud and intransigent rhetoric of the right-wing evangelical Christians who have dominated discussions of faith for so long. Instead of fire and brimstone, you had the hyperrational insistence of Sam Harris, the high-minded bomb throwing of Hitchens and the wacky relentlessness of Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford who spends so much time on his own Web site that it's hard to imagine he has time to do his job.
As with all social movements in their infancy—feminism, fundamentalism, rock and roll—passionate outbursts and entrenched positions were necessary. But now, on both sides of the theism debate, a mellowing is taking place—and with it, the welcome possibility of irreverence and humor. A number of recent and upcoming books showcase voices from Christians and nonbelievers that are intelligent but less strident than the old guard. Both sides seek to elevate the thing they have in common: doubt. In a fragile world, a confession of uncertainty is especially grave.
The Rev. Timothy Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, a 5,000-member megachurch in New York City that attracts an urbane, affluent, single crowd—the people who would be most likely to call themselves "seekers" or "skeptics." It also draws many immigrants, who come from places like Africa where Christianity is thriving. The vibrancy of the Redeemer congregation has made it a model for many other similar churches, both in New York and in big European cities. With his book "The Reason for God," due out in February, Keller positions himself as a C. S. Lewis for the 21st century, a defender of orthodox Christianity. "I urge skeptics to wrestle with the unexamined 'blind faith' on which skepticism is based, and to see how hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do not share them," he writes. "I also urge believers to wrestle with their personal and culture's objections to the faith. At the end of each process, even if you remain the skeptic or believer you have been, you will hold your own position with both greater clarity and greater humility." Doubt, says Keller, is the cornerstone of faith.
Also condemning closed-mindedness from a Christian point of view is the Rev. Peter Gomes, whose recent book "The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus" has been too overlooked. Gomes is an iconoclast—a conservative Christian who is also African-American and gay—and his book is an alternately eloquent and folksy attack on everybody who's sure of the right answer. The public conversation about religion is conducted "at too high a decibel level," says Gomes, a professor at Harvard Divinity School. What's "scandalous" about the Christian Gospel is its uncompromising call for compassion, he says. The solution to divisiveness is "a certain amount of modesty."
Finally, coming in March, a surprising confession: the prolific Bible scholar Bart Ehrman, who is known mostly for his work on the historical Jesus, concedes that in spite of his Christian credentials—which include four years at Bible college and a divinity degree from the Princeton Theological Seminary—he can no longer believe in the Christian God. An all-loving and all-powerful God, he concluded after years of struggle, would not cause so much suffering.
This is an old problem in theology called theodicy, but Ehrman's book, "God's Problem," contains so much earnest humility that he will find sympathetic readers even among believers. "Some people think they know the answers," he writes. "Or they aren't bothered by the questions. I'm not one of those people." Ehrman's clarity—and, as Gomes would say, modesty—is something to emulate. What's dangerous about the world today is not belief in God—or secularism or unbelief—but ruthless certainty. If 2008 is the year when we can begin, in private and in public, to concede that we don't know all the answers, then let us say amen.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/81388
More-modest voices are reclaiming the debate over faith from the bomb throwers.
You might think of 2007 as the year the atheists won. They didn't succeed in converting the 86 percent of Americans who say they believe in God into nonbelievers—but they probably weren't looking to do so anyway. With a steady stream of best sellers, starting in 2002 and culminating this year with Christopher Hitchens's "God Is Not Great," though, vociferous atheists did bring nonbelief into the public sphere. The number of people who felt comfortable enough to tell Gallup pollsters that they didn't believe in God inched up to 6 percent this year from 2 percent in 2001.
Most recently, these champions of godlessness emphatically (and correctly) argued that nonbelievers have the same rights under the Constitution as believers do. The strength of their arguments forced Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to concede the point. "Obviously in this nation our religious liberty includes the right to believe or not believe," Romney told NEWSWEEK in December, after a speech he made on religion lit up the Internet like a pinball machine. In a solid tactical maneuver, Romney had allied himself with believers of all faiths against the creep of secularism. It's a testament to the power of the atheists that he had to answer to them at all.
This victory, if you want to call it that (an overwhelming number of Americans still say they would not vote for an atheist presidential candidate), was hard won. It owed much to the loud and intransigent rhetoric of its main proponents—a reaction, perhaps, against the loud and intransigent rhetoric of the right-wing evangelical Christians who have dominated discussions of faith for so long. Instead of fire and brimstone, you had the hyperrational insistence of Sam Harris, the high-minded bomb throwing of Hitchens and the wacky relentlessness of Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford who spends so much time on his own Web site that it's hard to imagine he has time to do his job.
As with all social movements in their infancy—feminism, fundamentalism, rock and roll—passionate outbursts and entrenched positions were necessary. But now, on both sides of the theism debate, a mellowing is taking place—and with it, the welcome possibility of irreverence and humor. A number of recent and upcoming books showcase voices from Christians and nonbelievers that are intelligent but less strident than the old guard. Both sides seek to elevate the thing they have in common: doubt. In a fragile world, a confession of uncertainty is especially grave.
The Rev. Timothy Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, a 5,000-member megachurch in New York City that attracts an urbane, affluent, single crowd—the people who would be most likely to call themselves "seekers" or "skeptics." It also draws many immigrants, who come from places like Africa where Christianity is thriving. The vibrancy of the Redeemer congregation has made it a model for many other similar churches, both in New York and in big European cities. With his book "The Reason for God," due out in February, Keller positions himself as a C. S. Lewis for the 21st century, a defender of orthodox Christianity. "I urge skeptics to wrestle with the unexamined 'blind faith' on which skepticism is based, and to see how hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do not share them," he writes. "I also urge believers to wrestle with their personal and culture's objections to the faith. At the end of each process, even if you remain the skeptic or believer you have been, you will hold your own position with both greater clarity and greater humility." Doubt, says Keller, is the cornerstone of faith.
Also condemning closed-mindedness from a Christian point of view is the Rev. Peter Gomes, whose recent book "The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus" has been too overlooked. Gomes is an iconoclast—a conservative Christian who is also African-American and gay—and his book is an alternately eloquent and folksy attack on everybody who's sure of the right answer. The public conversation about religion is conducted "at too high a decibel level," says Gomes, a professor at Harvard Divinity School. What's "scandalous" about the Christian Gospel is its uncompromising call for compassion, he says. The solution to divisiveness is "a certain amount of modesty."
Finally, coming in March, a surprising confession: the prolific Bible scholar Bart Ehrman, who is known mostly for his work on the historical Jesus, concedes that in spite of his Christian credentials—which include four years at Bible college and a divinity degree from the Princeton Theological Seminary—he can no longer believe in the Christian God. An all-loving and all-powerful God, he concluded after years of struggle, would not cause so much suffering.
This is an old problem in theology called theodicy, but Ehrman's book, "God's Problem," contains so much earnest humility that he will find sympathetic readers even among believers. "Some people think they know the answers," he writes. "Or they aren't bothered by the questions. I'm not one of those people." Ehrman's clarity—and, as Gomes would say, modesty—is something to emulate. What's dangerous about the world today is not belief in God—or secularism or unbelief—but ruthless certainty. If 2008 is the year when we can begin, in private and in public, to concede that we don't know all the answers, then let us say amen.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 75 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #106187 by admin on January 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm
...and the wacky relentlessness of Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford who spends so much time on his own Web site that it's hard to imagine he has time to do his job.
If Lisa Miller is clueless enough to believe that someone of Richard Dawkins' stature does his own website, why would I think she has a clue about anything else? The content of the rest of the article certainly hasn't convinced me of anything other than that she is a complete fool.
Josh Timonen
Other Comments by admin
3. Comment #106190 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm
an evolutionary biologist at Oxford who spends so much time on his own Web site that it's hard to imagine he has time to do his job.
Josh, are you RD's doppelganger?
Other Comments by BAEOZ
4. Comment #106191 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 1:12 pm
By the way. Great job you're doing Josh. Many thanks. Other Comments by BAEOZ
5. Comment #106199 by quill on January 2, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I'm going to suggest that we all post a brief correction to this D'Souza-styled nonsense in the Comments section on Newsweek's article. Normally I wouldn't, but something about this particular piece annoys me more than others. The idea that 94% of Americans believe in God is totally absurd, and blatant reinventions of reality such as that should not go uncorrected. Other Comments by quill
6. Comment #106201 by robotaholic on January 2, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I am irritated -Professor Richard Dawkins is not wacky. Other Comments by robotaholic
7. Comment #106202 by Racquel Donkins on January 2, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Josh....we all luvs u v much an speciates wot u do fer us. milla is nastee golum.Other Comments by Racquel Donkins
8. Comment #106206 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 1:32 pm
What's dangerous about the world today is not belief in God—or secularism or unbelief—but ruthless certainty.
This statement insinuates that RD et al are all CERTAIN there is no god. Apparently she missed the part in TGD where RD says he cannot be certain that no god exists. How obnoxious.
Other Comments by annabanana
9. Comment #106209 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2008 at 1:39 pm
This is an article it is hard to take seriously, aside from the bizarre and even offensive ("bomb-throwing") attacks.I think there is going to be a major battle to get people to understand what real modesty and uncertainty means. It does not mean starting from the position that the Universe was made for you, and you (as against others) are personally saved by Jesus, and then expressing some reservations about this. I don't mean this cynically or ironically. People need to understand that real uncertainty means putting all beliefs "on hold" until sufficient evidence has been presented and validated. Real modesty means that one has to realise that introspection and revelation reveal only the workings of your own mind, and you are not selected by God for a special call.
There is a lot of education to be done.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
10. Comment #106210 by debaser71 on January 2, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Newsweek has lots of bad article because John Meacham (sp) is the editor and he is a weenie. He is one of those, "atheists are the same as fundamentalists" hopeless self proclaimed moderate types. He has a book too, shit if I remember the name but when he was interviewed he would spew bullshit like, "secularists focus too much on the constitution". Please do write.Other Comments by debaser71
11. Comment #106212 by al-rawandi on January 2, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Anna,You are assuming the author read TGD. That is dangerous. Don't assume people understand the ideas the critique in a national puublication.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
12. Comment #106214 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 1:53 pm
You are right, al-rawandi, but it's still obnoxious. I don't know how RD, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. can stand to do interviews and debates anymore when they are constantly bombarded by the same atrocious misconceptions over and over again. It didn't take me that long to train my dog to "shake" hands, how long does it take to train these people? Other Comments by annabanana
13. Comment #106218 by BigC on January 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I loved this bit:I urge skeptics to wrestle with the unexamined 'blind faith' on which skepticism is based, and to see how hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do not share them," he writes. "I also urge believers to wrestle with their personal and culture's objections to the faith. At the end of each process, even if you remain the skeptic or believer you have been, you will hold your own position with both greater clarity and greater humility." Doubt, says Keller, is the cornerstone of faith.
Skepticism is based on "blind faith". Ha!
"wrestle with you personal and culture's objection to faith" I beg your pardon?
"Doubt is the cornerstone of faith". No, lack of doubt is the cornerstone of faith. Logical doubt is the cornerstone of skepticism.
Other Comments by BigC
14. Comment #106221 by al-rawandi on January 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Anna,Like the debates with Distort D'Newza (Dinesh D'Souza). I don't get it. I would run across the stage and start beating my fist into his face.
These people aren't reasonable. They say ridiculous things that have nothing to do with anything to wild cheers from people who believe in what is tantamount to leprechauns and fairies.
RD and gang have the patience, of well, a saint.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
15. Comment #106222 by Jack Rawlinson on January 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm
The "wacky" comment was stupid and, of course, entirely unsupported. So was the suggestion that RD spends a huge amount of time here. It seems to me he drops in here and the forum occasionally to comment and that's about it. I imagine the articles of his which appear here are posted by Josh. Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
16. Comment #106228 by righton on January 2, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I just saw the announcement for the RD paperback TGD US book tour. I just wanted to say, PLEASE come to Portland or Seattle!!!Other Comments by righton
17. Comment #106229 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Ooooh! Come back to the Bible Belt as well! PLEEEEAAASE! :) South Carolina needs you! Other Comments by annabanana
18. Comment #106230 by BicycleRepairMan on January 2, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I Think the harsh critique of this article is a bit rushed, its not Pulitzer material, fair enough, but I think it points out an interesting phenomena and some good news. The religious have been forced to tone down their certainty, their beliefs are now, if only slightly, questioned in public.They have started to re-think their ideas, and perhaps more importantly, how they preach it. Good stuff.
Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
19. Comment #106236 by Mark Smith on January 2, 2008 at 2:22 pm
What utter rubbish. Is it laziness or stupidity that allows her to make a statement like 'What's dangerous about the world today is not belief in God—or secularism or unbelief—but ruthless certainty.' What the hell is 'ruthless certainty'?Other Comments by Mark Smith
20. Comment #106243 by Janus on January 2, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Mark Smith,You've hit the nail on the head. The sentence you've quoted is the usual mantra of the religious moderates. They look at religious fundies, they see how crazy they are, and they wonder why. Their conclusion is never that fundies are crazy because of their faith, because moderates have faith too, therefore the only possibility is that fundies are crazy because they're too certain. Ergo, certainty is bad, giving rise to the popular forms of postmodernism and post-structuralism (even if they don't realize that's what they believe).
Of course any thinking person can see that this is nonsense. Is it bad to be certain that the Earth is round, that our bodies are made of cells, that George W. Bush is the president of the USA, and that unicorns are mythical creatures?
There's nothing wrong with certainty, if this certainty is proportional to the quantity and quality of the evidence.
Religious fundamentalists aren't crazy because they're certain per se, they're crazy because they're certain about faith-based beliefs (and because these beliefs are inspired by a collection of superstitions and barbaric, outdated morality, of course).
Religious moderates aren't nicer than fundamentalists because they're less certain per se, they're nicer because they're less certain about their faith-based beliefs (and because they manage to fool themselves into ignoring the worst bits of the aforementioned collection of barbaric myths).
And better than either of those groups are people who take nothing on faith at all.
Certainty isn't the problem, faith is.
Other Comments by Janus
21. Comment #106246 by _J_ on January 2, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I liked this article. At the broadest level, its attutide is healthy, and its mistakes at least have the virtue of being hilarious. Certainly, it's annoying that Miller is so keen to draw a 'Blue Corner, Red Corner, Fight, Compromise' story that she fails to recognise that Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens have been making the case for sensible uncertainty from the start. But the mad image of 'wacky' Professor Dawkins, scientist by day and tireless web crusader by night, is one to be treasured.I'd say it's a testament to the effect that Dawkins's work has had on the public consciousness that his rare and measured appearances on a site that is admirably and transparently managed by Josh can so readily be misinterpreted as fleeting glimpses of the semi-mythical Keyser Soze of atheism, flicking a lighter onto the petrol of latent atheism before vanishing into the shadows from which he puppet-masters the entire movement...
Lunatic nonsense from Ms Miller, but beautiful.
Other Comments by _J_
22. Comment #106248 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Religion is on the retreat for now, but the battle against dogma continues.Other Comments by 82abhilash
23. Comment #106249 by Eric Blair on January 2, 2008 at 2:51 pm
zdravko: We have to show them how patient, placid and composed we are in dispute with them, because we try to be rational as much as we can. Let them lose their temper.Sound advice but easier said than done, apparently -- if common responses here are anything to go by.
EB
Other Comments by Eric Blair
24. Comment #106250 by Mike O'Risal on January 2, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Newsweek has lots of bad article because John Meacham (sp) is the editor and he is a weenie. He is one of those, "atheists are the same as fundamentalists" hopeless self proclaimed moderate types.
Wouldn't that make him a fundamentalist moderate?
Militant moderate?
Hmmm...
Other Comments by Mike O'Risal
25. Comment #106251 by PHackett on January 2, 2008 at 2:52 pm
One thing that is often overlooked by American commentators - America is not the whole world! This hand-wringing over "unbelief" - A lot of the world (Well Europe at least) has got over that already. Better look further afield before you start to look like backward hicks, if that has not happened already.Other Comments by PHackett
26. Comment #106253 by al-rawandi on January 2, 2008 at 2:55 pm
PHackett, This may come as a surpirse to some Americans. My countrymen can be rather solipsistic.
Bush "We are going to bomb Iraq"
Citizen (slack jawed yokel) "Hell YA!... wait where the fuck is that".
Other Comments by al-rawandi
27. Comment #106254 by CruciFiction on January 2, 2008 at 3:08 pm
And early 2008 (Easter) will see Bill Maher's new documentary, "Religulous" (as in religion is ridiculous). Since we are talking about "The Religious Battlefield" (and there IS a culture war at hand), I want to see him take no prisoners!http://youtube.com/watch?v=LRO-LVi1FKU
Other Comments by CruciFiction
28. Comment #106256 by Corylus on January 2, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Idle curiosity here, but zdravko Why do you lay out your posts like poems?
Is it because they look pretty? Or is it a deliberate strategy to get people to read your posts carefully and slowly, because they are unthinkingly looking out for rhymes and meter?
Or is it just a glitch on your computer?
Not being critical – merely curious :-)
Other Comments by Corylus
29. Comment #106260 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Janus. Great post. Very well put. How's your month going by the way? Other Comments by BAEOZ
30. Comment #106261 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Of course any thinking person can see that this is nonsense. Is it bad to be certain that the Earth is round, that our bodies are made of cells, that George W. Bush is the president of the USA, and that unicorns are mythical creatures?
There's nothing wrong with certainty, if this certainty is proportional to the quantity and quality of the evidence.
Ideally, yes. The problem is that many religious believe that they do have quality evidence for their beliefs.
I am undecided about this, but sometimes I feel the promotion of uncertainty is a healthy antidote to faith. I mean, can we really be sure of things...
The Earth is not quite round, there have been legal questions about both the 2000 and 2004 elections, and there is a theory that the unicorn was based on the rhinoceros, which is not (yet) extinct.
Perhaps it is best to avoid certainty: to say that we believe what we believe, but only for now, and only based on evidence.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
31. Comment #106269 by NormanDoering on January 2, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Steve Zara wrote:...but sometimes I feel the promotion of uncertainty is a healthy antidote to faith. I mean, can we really be sure of things...
More often than not, you'd have a more effective argument:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/dont-try-this-at-home.html
At least you might move the "Overton window."
Other Comments by NormanDoering
32. Comment #106271 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Steve, you didn't question that bodies are made of cells. Is that a case in which you hold dogmatic certainty? ;-)We need Richard Dawkins to visit Aus. You yanks have taken up too much of his time as it is.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
33. Comment #106274 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Steve, you didn't question that bodies are made of cells. Is that a case in which you hold dogmatic certainty? ;-)
Bother! missed that one! Saying bodies are made of cells ignores the intracellular matrix, the fluid in the blood and lymph, and, of course the cells which aren't really ours - the bacteria.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
34. Comment #106276 by Hoveringdog on January 2, 2008 at 3:42 pm
With his book "The Reason for God," due out in February, Keller positions himself as a C. S. Lewis for the 21st century, a defender of orthodox Christianity.I don't get the Christian veneration for C.S. Lewis. He was an interesting person, an excellent literary historian, but a rubbish philosopher. I'm not sure how anyone finds his work persuasive.
Other Comments by Hoveringdog
35. Comment #106279 by notsobad on January 2, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Very typical article: all about winning and losing and one tribe fighting each other. Other Comments by notsobad
36. Comment #106280 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Steve. I salute you! cells ignores the intracellular matrixWouldn't, however, the INTRAcellular matrix be inside said cells? Thus not really doing much for the argument that the body isn't just made of cells?
I don't get the Christian veneration for C.S. Lewis. He was an interesting person, an excellent literary historian, but a rubbish philosopher. I'm not sure how anyone finds his work persuasive.
Because rubbish philosophy in the C.S. Lewis sense coincides well with what the average Christian believes and doesn't require them to jump through any major philosophical hoops. In otherwords, it doesn't strain the brain and require them to justify the unjustifiable.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
37. Comment #106282 by Vinelectric on January 2, 2008 at 3:50 pm
al-rawandiThis is off topic but I've just read the Wikipedia entry on Ibn al rawandi. What a shock! Never heard of him before and never thought anyone dared to challenge religion as a source of morality back then. Thanks.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
38. Comment #106286 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Wouldn't, however, the INTRAcellular matrix be inside said cells? Thus not really doing much for the argument that the body isn't just made of cells?
Bother. Spelling. Meant extracellular.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
39. Comment #106288 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Bother. Spelling. Meant extracellular.
Steve you're unfaillingly reasonable and honest. How do you ever expect to win an argument in this age of bombast and insults?
Other Comments by BAEOZ
40. Comment #106291 by Stormkahn on January 2, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Finally, coming in March, a surprising confession: the prolific Bible scholar Bart Ehrman, who is known mostly for his work on the historical Jesus, concedes that in spite of his Christian credentials—which include four years at Bible college and a divinity degree from the Princeton Theological Seminary—he can no longer believe in the Christian God. An all-loving and all-powerful God, he concluded after years of struggle, would not cause so much suffering.
[Does the dance of joy!] Welcome to the brave new world Mr Ehrman. [waves from blighty]
Other Comments by Stormkahn
41. Comment #106295 by Mark Smith on January 2, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I am undecided about this, but sometimes I feel the promotion of uncertainty is a healthy antidote to faith. I mean, can we really be sure of things...
I don't think promotion of uncertainty does much to protect against faith. A lot of the advocates for it are actually also promoters of faith, albeit a moderate kind. And they seem to 'preach' uncertainty only against, say, 'militant atheism', and are pretty quiet towards the 'militant religious'. After all, if you are uncertain, you've got precious few grounds to say the more certain are wrong. And it gives the certain space to operate in. I'm afraid I can't see 'ruthless uncertainty' as anything more than empty rhetoric used by people who feel comfortable with the status quo.
Other Comments by Mark Smith
42. Comment #106301 by thirdchimpanzee on January 2, 2008 at 4:07 pm
A moments consideration of the following sentence tells you all you need to know about the author of this piece:
The number of people who felt comfortable enough to tell Gallup pollsters that they didn't believe in God inched up to 6 percent this year from 2 percent in 2001.
First - the math, to go from 2% to 6% is TRIPLING your presence, not inching your way up. Also, at 6% atheists signficantly outnumber adherents of Judaism.
Second - the acknowledgment of discomfort. The author admits what everyone in the US knows - to be a declared atheist anywhere other than the West Coast or New York is to risk social and commercial ostracism. She fails to follow up with why that should be the case, or how that might be artificially depressing the numbers she mentions.
There is also no mention of those parts of the world where atheists are perfectly comfortable declaring their world view. This is relevant in this case since she wants to bash Richard Dawkins, who has pointed out in interviews that where he comes from, its the person of faith who feels most in need of defending their position. What is apparantly shocking to Lisa Miller is that there are prominent atheists who are insisting on a normal conversation about the nature of belief - one that does not begin by presupposing the truth of the belief.
Finally - the presumption there is only one "God". If the sentence had read
...they didn't believe in any Gods ...
we might all be closer to the true nature of unbelief. But the position is never phrased that way - looks too much like a reasonable proposition, even for a Christian.
Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee
43. Comment #106302 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I don't think promotion of uncertainty does much to protect against faith. A lot of the advocates for it are actually also promoters of faith, albeit a moderate kind. And they seem to 'preach' uncertainty only against, say, 'militant atheism', and are pretty quiet towards the 'militant religious'. After all, if you are uncertain, you've got precious few grounds to say the more certain are wrong. And it gives the certain space to operate in. I'm afraid I can't see 'ruthless uncertainty' as anything more than empty rhetoric used by people who feel comfortable with the status quo.
I think I disagree. I think ruthless uncertainty could be a very useful stance, and I am certainly not comfortable with the status quo.
If people are only preaching uncertainty against atheism and not against faith then they simply don't understand what the term means, and this can be easily pointed out to be hypocritical.
I don't believe that uncertainty gives anyone space - in fact, it helps to deny them that. If you can persuade someone of the true nature of evidence and how it can be questioned, then they should be left in a state of skeptical uncertainty which provides no support for their previous mode of thought.
Perhaps...
Other Comments by Steve Zara
44. Comment #106304 by Lycosid on January 2, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Ms. Miller used the word "hyperrational," when she described Sam Harris. People who rail against reason like her have no business voting.Other Comments by Lycosid
45. Comment #106308 by Mark Smith on January 2, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Oops. I usually reread my posts before submitting, but got lazy on this one. My last sentence should have had 'ruthless certainty', not 'ruthless uncertainty'. I seem thereby to have promoted a philosophical stance entirely unintentionally. I'll come back on why I don't agree with it in a mo!Other Comments by Mark Smith
46. Comment #106317 by Janus on January 2, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Steve Zara:Ideally, yes. The problem is that many religious believe that they do have quality evidence for their beliefs.
I am undecided about this, but sometimes I feel the promotion of uncertainty is a healthy antidote to faith.
Yes, many religious believers do believe that they have evidence for their beliefs, but they're wrong.
Your argument is an argument about tactics, not about truth. I could rephrase it like this: "Even though certainty is a good thing when it's backed up by evidence, shouldn't we pretend that it's a bad thing if it will make many religious believers less fanatical than they currently are?"
Since I put a lot of importance on truth, my answer is no. If you're someone who cares less about the truth than I do, you may be tempted to answer yes, but I think you'd be wrong to do so.
First, spreading a lie (because that's what you're proposing we do, despite your good intentions) is a dangerous thing to do, because if it's repeated often enough it will become a dogma, and dogmas are difficult to break. Accepting that there are such things as hard truths (which isn't to say that these truths are unquestionable and unfalsifiable) is an absolutely essential feature of critical thinking and discourse. If all of our knowledge is nothing but an obscure, muddled mass of uncertainty, if no belief is significantly more certain than any other, then any decision, any policy, any discussion about reality is pointless. That's what post-structuralists would have us believe. Of course, I don't think you really believe that, but that is what many people believe, and spreading post-structuralism in the name of winning the war against religious fundamentalism will only strengthen these people. We might rid ourselves of one kind of crazies only to be overwhelmed by another kind.
Second, as you can see in the article we're commenting on, religious moderates (and many fundies) use the alleged awfulness of certainty as a shield against criticism of their beliefs. The dogma that certainty is bad is what allows them to call atheists like Richard Dawkins mean, intolerant, strident, and militant.
Third, I think it's shortsighted to limit our criticism to religious certainties. You're right that many fundies think they have evidence for their beliefs, and convincing them that they can hold on to their ridiculous beliefs even if they have no evidence for them might be an adequate stopgap measure, a decent temporary tactic, but that's all it is. It might make some of them less intolerant and less dangerous, but it won't help us build a reality-based society.
The only real, permanent solution is to pull them out of their ignorance by educating them, and to arm them against faith by teaching them critical thinking.
I mean, can we really be sure of things...
The Earth is not quite round, there have been legal questions about both the 2000 and 2004 elections, and there is a theory that the unicorn was based on the rhinoceros, which is not (yet) extinct.
Pedantry.
Other Comments by Janus
47. Comment #106322 by Mark Smith on January 2, 2008 at 4:49 pm
'Ruthless uncertainty':If this becomes popular, I claim the glory. At last I'll have done something original, even if totally by accident!
If people are only preaching uncertainty against atheism and not against faith then they simply don't understand what the term means, and this can be easily pointed out to be hypocritical.
They tend to advocate 'doubting faith', but faith nonetheless.
I don't believe that uncertainty gives anyone space - in fact, it helps to deny them that. If you can persuade someone of the true nature of evidence and how it can be questioned, then they should be left in a state of skeptical uncertainty which provides no support for their previous mode of thought.
I disagree, because established religions and more ambiguous spiritualities etc all have it written in that they are stances which are not wholly dependent on the evidence. Christians might argue, for example, that the evidence will only take you so far, and then you need to make the leap of faith.
I'll rush to add that I am not advocating that we should necessarily be claiming certainty for atheism – perhaps merely that, all things considered, we perceive it to be the most reasonably view.
Other Comments by Mark Smith
48. Comment #106326 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Christians might argue, for example, that the evidence will only take you so far, and then you need to make the leap of faith.
True, but the theme of the article is that even the previously faithful should start to admit uncertainty. If we can question the "so far", reducing the platform from which the leap of faith can be made....
I'll rush to add that I am not advocating that we should necessarily be claiming certainty for atheism – perhaps merely that, all things considered, we perceive it to be the most reasonably view.
I am not going to disagree with that.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
49. Comment #106334 by Pilot22A on January 2, 2008 at 5:07 pm
" Doubt, says Keller, is the cornerstone of faith."That is silly, actually, gullibility is the "cornerstone of faith."
Other Comments by Pilot22A
50. Comment #106376 by njwong on January 2, 2008 at 6:53 pm
42. Comment #106291 by Stormkahn on January 2, 2008 at 3:58 pm
[Does the dance of joy!] Welcome to the brave new world Mr Ehrman. [waves from blighty]
Actually, Dr Bart Ehrman is a professor and the chairman of Religious Studies of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and also the author of the book "Misquoting Jesus."
He was an evangelical Christian as a teenager, and was very interested in what he thought was God's true message. However, Dr. Ehrman's subsequent close analysis of the Bible and research into the field of textual criticism destroyed his faith in the Bible.
Dr Ehrman is now an agnostic, and is a prime example of someone who has looked at Christianity deeply but found it to be faulty as a religion.
He gave a very illuminating lecture (the lecture is part of the "Heyns Lecture Series") on biblical manuscript tampering at Stanford University on 25 April 2007:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=397006836098752165&hl=en
NJ
Other Comments by njwong
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg
"Aquarius is a miscellaneous set of stars all at different distances from us, which have no connection with each other except that they constitute a (meaningless) pattern when seen from a certain (not particularly special) place in the galaxy (here)."
Richard Dawkins
"Hot on the heels of its magnanimous pardoning of Galileo, the Vatican has now moved with even more lightning speed to recognise the truth of Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins
"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."
Richard Dawkins
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson
Other Recommended Reading
Irreligion
John Allen Paulos
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
Under the Banner of Heaven
Jon Krakauer
Genome
Matt Ridley
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #106186 by quill on January 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Other Comments by quill