Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, December 3, 2006 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

by Nicholas D. Kristof / NYTimes.com

Reposted from:
http://select.nytimes.com

kristofIf God is omniscient and omnipotent, you can't help wondering why she doesn't pull out a thunderbolt and strike down Richard Dawkins.

Or, at least, crash the Web site of www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com. That's a snarky site that notes that while people regularly credit God for curing cancer or other ailments, amputees never seem to enjoy divine intervention.

"If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day," the Web site declares, adding: "It would appear, to an unbiased observer, that God is singling out amputees and purposefully ignoring them."

That site is part of an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive led in part by Professor Dawkins — the Oxford scientist who is author of the new best seller "The God Delusion." It's a militant, in-your-face brand of atheism that he and others are proselytizing for.

He counsels readers to imagine a world without religion and conjures his own glimpse: "Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers,' no Northern Ireland 'troubles,' no 'honor killings,' no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money."

Look elsewhere on the best-seller list and you find an equally acerbic assault on faith: Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation." Mr. Harris mocks conservative Christians for opposing abortion, writing: "20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all."

The number of avowed atheists is tiny, with only 1 to 2 percent of Americans describing themselves in polls as atheists. But about 15 percent now say that they are not affiliated with any religion, and this vague category is sometimes described as the fastest-growing "religious group" in America today (some surveys back that contention, while others don't).

Granted, many Americans may not yet be willing to come out of the closet and acknowledge their irreligious views. In polls, more than 90 percent of Americans have said that they would be willing to vote for a woman, a Jew or a black, and 79 percent would be willing to vote for a gay person. But at last count, only 37 percent would consider voting for an atheist.

Such discrimination on the basis of (non) belief is insidious and intolerant, and undermines our ability to have far-reaching discussions about faith and politics. Mr. Harris, for example, makes some legitimate policy points, such as criticism of conservative Christians who try to block research on stem cells because of their potential to become humans.

"Almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering," notes Mr. Harris. "Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings."

Yet the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant — and mean. It's contemptuous and even ... a bit fundamentalist.

"These writers share a few things with the zealous religionists they oppose, such as a high degree of dogmatism and an aggressive rhetorical style," says John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "Indeed, one could speak of a secular fundamentalism that resembles religious fundamentalism. This may be one of those cases where opposites converge."

Granted, religious figures have been involved throughout history in the worst kinds of atrocities. But as Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot show, so have atheists.

Moreover, for all the slaughters in the name of religion over the centuries, there is another side of the ledger. Every time I travel in the poorest parts of Africa, I see missionary hospitals that are the only source of assistance to desperate people. God may not help amputees sprout new limbs, but churches do galvanize their members to support soup kitchens, homeless shelters and clinics that otherwise would not exist. Religious constituencies have pushed for more action on AIDS, malaria, sex trafficking and Darfur's genocide, and believers often give large proportions of their incomes to charities that are a lifeline to the neediest.

Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let's hope that the Atheist Left doesn't revive them. We've suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance.

Comments 1 - 28 of 28 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #11064 by Irate Harry on December 3, 2006 at 2:14 am

"Every time I travel in the poorest parts of Africa, I see missionary hospitals that are the only source of assistance to desperate people. God may not help amputees sprout new limbs, but churches do galvanize their members to support soup kitchens, homeless shelters and clinics that otherwise would not exist".

What a load of c**p. These cynical missionaries have raped Africa, Asia, and other 'desperate people'. They have spread the blight of christianity (only surpassed by despicable muslim conversions during the mughal invasions) to vulnerable people. These missionary ventures are nothing more than recruitment camps for the dreaded christian proselytisation, basically dishonest in the name of god. As I go around the countries, I see the insidious poison of mindless religion that makes the people so much more desperate.

Secular charities that go largely unsung are the real heroes.

A modest proposal? or a religious wolf in a moderate wolf's clothing?

2. Comment #11066 by James on December 3, 2006 at 2:27 am

"Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars..."

What? Are you blind? How, exactly, has the Religious Right retreated from the culture wars? If by this you mean that people have voted out Republicans from office in Congress in the US, how the fucking hell does this show that the Religious Right itself has retreated? Can someone either let me know what this guy is talking about, or show me what crackpipe he's hitting?

3. Comment #11078 by goddogit on December 3, 2006 at 4:15 am

I'd get upset, but this guy is the classic ineffectual kind of cat box liner that the NYT uses to maintain its thickness, in both senses. His opinions are so trifling, yet so predictable in their method of pandering, he really should be a sportswriter.

4. Comment #11108 by Johan on December 3, 2006 at 6:30 am

I once had a friend who claimed that it doesn't matter how dark it gets, your eyes will eventually get used to the new levels of light, even when there is no light at all, and you will be able to see. All my other friends and I mocked his idea saying that (which of course is obvious to any thinking person), if not a single photon hits the retina, you don't see. Period.
Our friend got upset accusing us of not respecting his belief, and being dogmatic.

I interpret the argument of the religious moderates and anyone thinking that if scientists laugh at alternative explanations of certain phenomena they must be just as dogmatic as the religious fanatics they debate. It would be like accusing a person of dogmatism for laughing at the idea that Thor swings his hammer every time there is lightning, when we know perfectly well that the theory of electricity has offered human kind a perfectly non-magical, tangible proof that the Thor theory just doesn't work. Just switch on the light!

The problem is that there are still a great number of people who don't understand why the theory of evolution is a proof that God couldn't have created all the species in one blow, and most likely doesn't exist at all.
Only out of this ignorance comes the accusation against scientists and laymen thinking scientifically of being dogmatic in their convictions. Would you switch on the light, please!!!!

5. Comment #11112 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 7:00 am

WHY SHOULD WE TOLERATE DUMB ASS IDEOLOGY AT ALL

6. Comment #11130 by denoir on December 3, 2006 at 8:49 am

People confuse tolerance and respect. Unlike religious fundamentalists atheists are quite tolerant: you won't find many non-believers advocating the stoning of believers.

Respecting or disrespecting a belief is a question of free thought and free speech. How disrespect is interpreted depends to a large degree on the social context.

Is the aggressive style useful? Well, in America it might be. Not that it will "convert" many believers, but it will broaden the discussion. People will at least be aware that there is an alternative. In Europe, largely post-theist, it probably won't have much of an effect as the believers are a minority already. Perhaps in some circles it will affect the European-American communication as Europeans have for quite some time now been shocked, amused and worried about the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the US - but kept quiet.

In the Muslim world nobody will read the book. If somebody tries to import it, it will be banned as it is blasphemous.

7. Comment #11131 by Randy Ping on December 3, 2006 at 8:49 am

Meh, this guy needs to read The Blind Watchmaker and have a big glass of "Shut the F*** up".

8. Comment #11142 by Dan P on December 3, 2006 at 9:49 am

The religious right has not retreated, they are losing though and any perception of "retreat" is the result of being beaten back, the problem is that they will never surrender, expect things too get nastier and nastier as they are driven into smaller corners (expect bombs and violence, oh yeah that has happened already). Nevertheless I think they have reached the peak of their "revival", I must say I was slightly perturbed as well as amused at their slight and very brief grasp of power they enjoyed and that was enough of an "over reach" to trigger a backlash.

Also remember that they also came too power (at least in America) as the result of an aliance with the corrupt aristrocrats whose only god is money and the politics of fear. There just was no way for this frankenstein monster too survive for long.

9. Comment #11150 by Luke Mavuto on December 3, 2006 at 11:28 am

Billy Sands: There is great joke from the legendary Bill Hicks (RIP) that goes something like, "If life is a miracle, then I just spilled a million little miracles into a sock next to my bed last night." An inept attempt to quote, but you get the point. All atheists should be familiar with Hicks' work, it makes it all so much less depressing.

The fact that Kristoff's writing passes as thoughtful editorial sure doesn't make the NYT look very good. I am perplexed at why it is so difficult to understand the difference between belief and knowledge based on evidence. This constant insistence that science is a belief as much as religion is infuriating. The sky is not blue because I believe it is blue. I'm looking right at the damn thing, and it's blue! You can believe it is red if you want, but don't tell me your belief is equal to my observation. Religious people seem to stare right into the face of a blue sky and call it red.

I hope you all have heard about the problem with the museum in Kenya. Someone has got to do something about it, fast. Google this article: Scientist Fights Church Effort to Hide Museum's Pre-Human Fossils

10. Comment #11151 by Jack Rawlinson on December 3, 2006 at 11:39 am

Oh yes, wouldn't you just love it if atheists stayed nice and quiet and polite and stopped being so... well, mean by challenging your stupid, world-damaging beliefs? Wouldn't you like that so very, very much? Wouldn't that make things so much easier for you?

Tough.

11. Comment #11155 by Roy on December 3, 2006 at 11:44 am

"If God is omniscient and omnipotent, you can't help wondering why she doesn't pull out a thunderbolt and strike down Richard Dawkins.".... Well we all know why that is!
Does he honestly think if there was no religion there would be no such thing as compassionate "Red Cross" type organisations?

12. Comment #11160 by Youssef51 on December 3, 2006 at 12:01 pm

Kristof's heart is in the right place. Read his columns about Darfur if you doubt it.

On this topic, however, he does not know what he is talking about. He's just espousing the Kumbaya doctrine of hands around the campfire. Religious actors need to be told off. Badly.

Mr. Kristof: Think about Darfur and the misery that Islamic intolerance (between Moslems no less!) has brought down on the Darfuris. A little humanism in that wretched part of the world probably would have saved a few 100,000's of lives by now.

13. Comment #11163 by milkywayinhabitant on December 3, 2006 at 12:47 pm

When I read the title of this article (Swift, anyone?), I expected it to be a funny, satirical take on the whole religious/nonreligious debate but if it is then I missed it entirely.

This guy obviously has no clue. That whole bit about the Religious Right retreating from the culture wars is absolutely ridiculous. Also, had he actually read TGD he might have pointed out that Dawkins himself mentions Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., and points out that none of them ever committed atrocities IN THE NAME OF atheism...quite different than the Inquisition, Crusades, witch hunts, 9/11, 7/7, and so on.

Milky Way Inhabitant
http://milkywayinhabitant.blogspot.com

14. Comment #11166 by milkywayinhabitant on December 3, 2006 at 12:52 pm

J,

My thoughts exactly. It appears I clicked to post mine right before you did...strange :).

Milky Way Inhabitant
http://milkywayinhabitant.blogspot.com

15. Comment #11168 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 1:15 pm

Others have already responded to this, but I felt the need to do so again, for emphasis if nothing else.


"Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, "

What???

16. Comment #11333 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 7:42 am

Billy,

If God sat on your face I doubt whether you'd believe in him! You would no doubt interpret the sight of a vast cosmic arsehole descending from the heavens as a warning to smoke fewer funny cigarettes in future, not as evidence of His existence. I agree that a God who deliberately designed Ebola must be a bit of a wanker but I'd rather use arguments like that to win the argument than crowing about how stupid the other side is. It has often been said that the ichneumon wasp, which parasitises other insects, helped Darwin to lose his own faith. 'I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars', he wrote in a letter to Asa Gray. If it persuaded Darwin, who was once a committed Christian, there's hope that it'll persuade others. I'm all for robust argument, all against slanging matches.

Tom

17. Comment #11369 by milkywayinhabitant on December 4, 2006 at 10:14 am

Tom,

You're seeing it like the majority sees it. Religious folks can talk negatively about atheism/agnosticism/non-belief, etc. all they want and not be seen as "fundamentalists" but the moment an atheist spouts off something negative about religion he/she is labeled "fundamentalist atheist". It's because of the social norm of "it's not OK to say bad things about religion". One of the main things Sam Harris is trying to accomplish with his books is the simple act of conversation. He's trying to make people have good, thought-provoking conversations about the potential (and already seen) negative effects religion has on the world in the 21st century.

I can have an opinion of Christianity however negative it may be and it doesn't make me a fundamentalist...even if I do some name-calling every now and then. I admit, it comes off as immature and unintelligent, but it still doesn't make me an extremist or fundamentalist.

Milky Way Inhabitant
http://milkywayinhabitant.blogspot.com

18. Comment #11377 by rationalrevolution on December 4, 2006 at 11:01 am

Re 1:

He didn't say Hitler, and Hitler was definitely not an atheist, he was an anti-atheist religious fanatic.

Mao didn't kill anyone "for being religious", that had noting to do with the deaths that occurred in China after the revolution. Most of the people who died during Mao's rule were either A) killed by vigilante revolutionaries, or B) died due to unintended consequences of poor planning resulting in famines (which had been common in China for centuries). The population of China was 400 million when Mao came to power. It was 700 million when he left power, the single largest population growth spurt in all of China's history.

The majority of people that Stalin explicitly had executed were themselves atheists and Marxists. Most of the people targeted by Stalin were his political rivals, all of whom were in the head of the Communist Party. There was religious persecution in the USSR, though, definitely, just like there was in the French Revolution, what do you expect after the institution had been aiding in the oppression of millions of people and hindering education, etc., but the deaths in the USSR were mainly due to #1) political oppression to keep the separatist groups from leaving the union #2) famines caused in part by willful destruction of farming property as a form of protest.

I'm not even sure that Pol Pot was any kind of atheist or certainly any kind of intellectually confirmed atheist, as both Mao and Stalin were. Pol Pot was an uneducated person in a backwards and impoverished country that had been destroyed by colonial powers. Cambodian society has nothing in common with Western society, ti had completely different culture, norms, values, etc., and certainly different religions. The main target of Pol Pot's aggression was the intellectuals, hardly a group of people that atheists in the West would ever attack. We, again, would have been the targets of aggression by Pol Pot. Pol Pot wasn't killing religious people, he was killing intellectuals and city people and property owners.

The mass killings of the 20th century have everything to do with factors that have nothing to do with atheism. All of these mass deaths took place in impoverished countries that had high populations compared to the amount of food they could possibly produce, where there were massive uneducated populations of oppressed people who were ready to turn on their "masters" and take control at and cost due to how they had been abused, etc.

The only real exception to this is the Nazis, who engaged in killing for completely different reasons, and who killed people for no practical reason at all and who targeted many more people specifically to kill them, where in the USSR and China most of the deaths were due to unintended famines.

What took place in China was not much different from what took place in France or America, just on a much larger scale. During the American revolution 2 million people lived in all North America. During the Chinese, about 400 million, and anyway, the Kuomintang and the Chinese warlords killed more people during the Chinese Civil War than the Communists did, and they also aided the Japanese during WWII in fights against the Red Army, when in some cases it was only the Red Army defending China against everyone.

But, then again, people don't like the details.

19. Comment #11408 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 1:01 pm

i did not know that doctors without borders was a religious organization working to give medical assistance to underdeveloped countries

20. Comment #11476 by Aussie on December 5, 2006 at 12:24 am

"... a bit fundamentalist"

"Fundamentalism" is generally understood to mean "scriptural literalism".

It is difficult to see how atheists could ever be regarded as "fundamentalist" as they do revere any scripture.

Other Comments by Aussie

21. Comment #11498 by Tomboy on December 5, 2006 at 2:23 am

milkywayinhabitant,

Fundamentalist, like terrorist, is a slippery term, with no stable consensus definition. Is 'state terrorism' a contradiction is terms? Some say yes, others no. The dictionary won't help you. Is 'fundamentalist atheist' a contradiction in terms. Maybe? Aussie says that 'it is difficult to see how atheists could ever be regarded as "fundamentalist" because they do not revere any scripture'. Fair enough, I agree that atheist fundamentalists are rare, but I see plenty of evidence on this website for entirely uncritical reverence for the author of TGD and other atheist heros. Reverence in all its guises is dangerous.

By the way, I don't 'see it like the majority sees it', at least in this regard. I can't abide the uncritical respect in which religious opinion is held. Almost nothing has made me more ashamed of my country than the disgraceful, spineless decision of British newspaper editors not to republish the Mohammed cartoons. I am all for treating contemptible views with contempt.

But you acknowledge that name calling comes off as 'immature and unintelligent'. We can do better than that. After all we are - quite literally - smarter than the opposition. Everyone here will have seen the results of surveys of IQ distribution among atheists and believers and they're not flattering to the latter. Let's win the ARGUMENT, not the shouting match!

Best regards,

Tom (aka Tomboy aka Thomas Mitchell)

Other Comments by Tomboy

22. Comment #11512 by Dave Child on December 5, 2006 at 6:14 am

"Religious constituencies have pushed for more action on AIDS, malaria, sex trafficking and Darfur's genocide, and believers often give large proportions of their incomes to charities that are a lifeline to the neediest."

Hmm. Religion is almost single-handedly responsible for widespread AIDS in Africa, opposing the use of contraception. Sex trafficking? Most of the victims appear to be young women taken from societies where they have few rights compared to men ... because of religion. Darfur? Apparently the major difference between the sides is that one is Muslim, the other Christian.

Which leaves the fight against Malaria. Perhaps the most famous organisation fighting against malaria, is the Gates one ... and Bill Gates is an atheist.

Other Comments by Dave Child

23. Comment #11513 by mdowe on December 5, 2006 at 6:37 am

 avatarDavid Mathews,

It is true that atheists are just as fallible as everyone else, and the majority of us are not super-exceptionally intelligent. But in the end the fallibility of individuals doesn't change the balance of the arguments .. it is a complete red herring. Judged from the criteria of logic and evidence, atheistic arguments have never seen any serious opposition from any theist, no-matter how intelligent he or she happens to be. Any argument you will make for theism can be countered from the perspective of logic and evidence. The whole issue has has been rehashed ad nauseam. I doubt there are any new arguments left to be made. The only question is can you be honest with yourself and judge impartially?

Other Comments by mdowe

24. Comment #11520 by Jack Rawlinson on December 5, 2006 at 8:13 am

 avatarDavid Matthews writes:

"Atheists resort to the same shortcuts, prejudices, bigotry and emotional non-arguments as the Theists"

I've been browsing a few of your posts, David, and I have to say you are extremely fond of tossing out unsupported declarations and opinions as if they were facts. I'm afraid this serves no useful purpose: it certainly convinces no one of anything. Your latest such declaration needs supporting evidence if you expect it to be taken seriously. I would say that the evidence - on this site and elsewhere - does not support your declaration. Most active atheists are extremely interested in defending their position with logic, reason and evidence. Sure, we all make offhand observations here and there but when challenged, we will nearly always argue our case and defend or amend such observations. You can see that in the Dawkins and Harris books and you can see it here too if you look honestly.

As for atheists being more intelligent than religious believers, well, it's debatable of course but there is some evidence to support it.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

"Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious"

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

25. Comment #11521 by Thomas Mitchell on December 5, 2006 at 8:17 am

Billy,

I hadn't come across the Attenborough quote. Thanks for pointing it out - it's wonderful. I agree with you that the Bible pretty much rules out the existence of the God that most Christians I know say they believe in but I think that David Matthews deserves an honourable mention for doing such a spectacular grave digging job for his faith.

David,

Is RD paying you for this? I have no interest in engaging in discussion with someone who merely restates his position ad nauseam. Some evidence (look it up, David, it's a useful concept) that atheists are more intelligent than believers is summarised beginning on p.100 of TGD. It goes without saying that this fact says nothing in itself about the truth of atheists' position but it does mean believers have a tough fight on their hands.

Regards,

Tom

Other Comments by Thomas Mitchell

26. Comment #11602 by Luke Mavuto on December 5, 2006 at 10:35 pm

It is not necessarily true that atheists are smarter than theist (I actually just about changed "smarter" to "more intelligent" and then got caught in an irony spiral, jeezus) and I am always wary of over inflated egos, including my own. Atheists may be said to be more rational though. Does being rational mean you are intelligent? I don't know that they are necessarily correlative, but being unintelligent may make one more succeptable (which I tried to spell three times) to irrational beliefs. I tend to think of believers as victim in that since; uneducated folk taken advantage of by other smarter folks.

And all people, intelligent or not, atheist or not, reserve the right to make fun of others at any time for any reason, sorry. I can ridicule believers and be an ass all I want. Maybe that's not a useful rhetorical tool for debate, but who says we have to always take the high road and debate intelligently? It might even be healthy for religious people to take more crap from us.

Other Comments by Luke Mavuto

27. Comment #11611 by Louis Perry on December 6, 2006 at 12:15 am

I was so happy to see Richard Dawkins' and Sam Harris' responses to Nicholas Kristof's New York Times op-ed entitled, A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

On December 3, immediately upon reading the piece, I sent the following letter to the editor at The Times:

"In his December 3 opinion, A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion, Nicholas D. Kristof has clearly overreacted to the recent books The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation. Any recent public display in the name of atheism hardly rises to the level of what Mr. Kristof calls "irreligious intolerance," especially in the face of the intimidation, browbeating and bullying
that humanity has endured from religionists for thousands of years.

Mr. Kristof writes, "Granted, religious figures have been involved throughout history in the worst kinds of atrocities. But as Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot show, so have atheists."

The significant difference that Mr. Kristof fails to point out is that Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot did not commit atrocities in the name of atheism."

I applaud Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Harris every day.

Other Comments by Louis Perry

28. Comment #11719 by burlnuts on December 6, 2006 at 9:12 pm

In Worcester, Mass., the Dec. 5th Worcester Telegram ran this article with the title "In-your-face atheists ratchet up attacks on Christians, believers". Quite a far cry from Mr. Kristof's original title.
This paper routinely prints letters to the editor from all the pious in town, no matter how poorly written, or indeed 'in-your-face' they are.

When reading the article, I noticed that the only quoted from TGD used come from the first few pages. No doubt that is as far as Kristof read. Too bad, he might have learned just how illogical the remainder of his article sounds.

Other Comments by burlnuts
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: