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)
Thursday, January 25, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version Print | Comments

Document Arguing for Atheism

by Michael Shermer, Science Magazine

See:
http://sciencemagazine.com/
Vol 315, 26 January 2007


There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me … that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are?

Such stirring words, spoken with such moral conviction, must surely come from an outraged liberal exasperated with the conservative climate of America today, and one can be forgiven for thinking that in a review of The God Delusion these are the words of Richard Dawkins himself, who is well known for not suffering religious fools gladly. But no. They were entered into the Congressional Record on 16 September 1981, by none other than Senator Barry Goldwater, the fountain-head of the modern conservative movement, the man whose failed 1964 run for the presidency was said to have been fulfilled in 1980 by Ronald Reagan, and the candidate whose campaign slogan was "In Your Heart You Know He's Right."

If Goldwater had been president for the past six years, I doubt that Dawkins would have penned such a powerful polemic against the infusion of religion into nearly every nook and cranny of public life. But here we are, and like Goldwater, Dawkins is sick and tired of being told that atheists are immoral, second-class, back-of-the-bus citizens. The God Delusion is his way of, like the Howard Beale character in the 1976 film Network, sticking his head out the window and shouting, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."

But The God Delusion is so much more than a polemic. It is an exercise to "raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." Dawkins wants atheists to quit apologizing for their religious skepticism. "On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind."

Dawkins also wants to raise consciousness about the power of Darwin's dangerous idea of natural selection. He believes that most people—even many scientists—do not fully understand just how powerful an idea it is. He attributes that failure to the need to be steeped and immersed in natural selection before you can truly recognize its power. In this context, natural selection "shatters the illusion of design within the domain of biology, and teaches us to be suspicious of any kind of design hypothesis in physics and cosmology as well."

Out of obligation, of course, Dawkins reviews and offers rebuttals to all the standard arguments for God's existence. He concentrates on dissecting the anthropic principle and dismantling intelligent design creationism. (As part of the latter efforts, he redirects the creationists' argument from complexity to show that God must have been designed by a superintelligent designer.) He then builds a case for "why there almost certainly is no God."The remainder of the book outlines possible evolutionary origins of morality and religious belief, a justification for being hard on religion, childhood religious indoctrination as child abuse, and an elegant commentary on the progressively changing moral zeitgeist. Dawkins closes with a tribute to the power and beauty of science, which no living writer does better.

When I received the bound galleys for The God Delusion, I cringed at the title, wishing it were more neutral (why not, say, The God Question?).As I read the book, I found myself wincing at Dawkins's references to religious people as "faith-heads," as being less intelligent, poor at reasoning, or even deluded, and to religious moderates as enablers of terrorism. I shudder because I have religious friends and colleagues who do not fit these descriptors, and I empathize at the pain such pejorative appellations cause them. In addition, I am not convinced by Dawkins's argument that without religion there would be "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'…." In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony.

I also never imagined a book with this title would ever land on bestseller lists in the United States. But I was wrong.The data have spoken. The God Delusion is a runaway bestseller, a market testimony to the hunger many people—far more, I now think, than polls reveal—have for someone in a position of prestige and power to speak for them in such an eloquent voice. Dawkins's latest book deserves multiple readings, not just as an
important work of science, but as a great work of literature.

Comments 1 - 39 of 39 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #19214 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 3:36 pm

I am not convinced by Dawkins's argument that without religion there would be "no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, [etc.]" In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony.

Some least!

I once caught the tail-end of a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan in front of Tim Russert (there was never a time when I wished more for a rewind button). Sullivan finished with his usual schtick on how the problem is that people are not separating religion from politics and Hitchens replied plainly, "I'm sorry, Andrew, but you cannot separate religion from politics." Indeed, the separation of church and state does not imply the separation of religion and politics.

Sullivan is wrong, Hitchens is right, and Shermer is underestimating the problem.

Other Comments by Sancus

2. Comment #19217 by Friend Giskard on January 25, 2007 at 3:46 pm

 avatarSo, Mr Shermer, you have friends and colleagues who are religious, and yet not deluded?

Are you serious?

As for the pain these appellations cause them, I get called a lot of worse things by religious zealots all the time (e.g. Qur'an 98:6 calls unbelievers "the vilest of creatures" -- which puts me, and everyone I care about, below maggots) . But it doesn't cause me any pain at all. It just reminds me that I'm superior to them.

Your friends shouldn't be so sensitive. (Or is it different for them, because the most hurtful thing you can say to a person is the thing that -- deep down -- they know to be true.)

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

3. Comment #19219 by 601 on January 25, 2007 at 3:51 pm

 avatar
...often attributed solely to religion by atheists...

Most conflicts are not caused by religion.

However, religion is ideal for marketing and "rationalizing" putting hurt on others. It is all too easy to transform local injustice (political, economic, etc.) into a religious struggle. Fighting for justice isn't sexy, only wimps whine about injustice.

Other Comments by 601

4. Comment #19221 by William on January 25, 2007 at 4:05 pm

"In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven..."

Dawkins didn't deny that those events were "politically driven". He didn't attribute them "solely to religion." He said that they wouldn't have happened without the catalyst of faith. Shermer is addressing an entirely different argument.

"I cringed at the title, wishing it were more neutral..."

Sounds like typical Neville Chamberlain-style rationalism. Don't rock the boat!

Other Comments by William

5. Comment #19222 by Friend Giskard on January 25, 2007 at 4:06 pm

 avatarLet Richard do what Richard does and leave the arse-licking to Shermer.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

6. Comment #19224 by diquea on January 25, 2007 at 4:19 pm

"In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony."

First, I'm tired of this argument. Just because religion is not the sole cause, does not do away with the need to rid ourselves of it.

Second, anyone know if Shermer has written more on this argument? Or Atran? Someone? I hear them invoke it from time to time, as if it is an alternative rather than a supplement. Let's rid ourselves of poor reasoning, intellectual poverty, and altogether irrational ideas; I have heard Dawkins and Harris acknowledge there are more problems than religion in this world too many times, for this diversion to still be used. Religion is a problem. That there are others does not make it not so.

Other Comments by diquea

7. Comment #19226 by Devolution on January 25, 2007 at 4:29 pm

 avatarShermer's comments surprised me, especially after reading Skeptic magazine for so long and watching his comments on Penn and Tellers "Bullshit" episode about the Bible.

Other Comments by Devolution

8. Comment #19228 by Will in Aus on January 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm

 avatarLooks like Shermer avoided making any comment regarding his own opinion on the issue. He simply recalls what the book was about, and then criticises part of it. Perhaps he was too afraid of the consequences of supporting the arguments in the book, instead preferring to mildly criticise it so as to seem less supportive of the atheism movement.

Other Comments by Will in Aus

9. Comment #19229 by Russell Blackford on January 25, 2007 at 4:50 pm

It's funny how solicitous non-believers like Shermer can be to the sensitivities of their religionist friends, etc. I don't really blame him; I feel some of that solicitousness, too. I have no wish to upset loved ones or colleagues or students. My inner circle of friends are a different matter, since I doubt that there would be a religious thought among them ... but even so ...

BUT we really can be too nice for our own good or the good of the world. We have to try to be a bit more forthright. Religion has been treated as beyond robust criticism for too long. (It's not like the favour is returned. How much does the pope go out of his way not to annoy homosexuals, say, or all of those of us with metaphysical naturalist viewpoints, or all the other categories that are demonised in his theology?)

Let's not lose sight, however, of the fact that Shermer's piece is a positive review overall.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

10. Comment #19230 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 4:53 pm

It's good to have his criticism, because it helps us make the distinguishing points clearer.

His review is very positive and he's looking to be convinced. He even wrote a book recently, Why Darwin Matters, attacking the politicization of science education. The minute he recognizes that religious people cannot separate faith from politics, he'll come around, I think.

Shermer debated an Intelligent Design theorist a few months ago and he didn't mind releasing the hounds then.

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=3184

Other Comments by Sancus

11. Comment #19234 by jonecc on January 25, 2007 at 5:13 pm

In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony


The particular problem with religion is that it's passed down from parent to child, so that in the north of Ireland for instance they're fighting today's battles through the prism of yesterday's. Disputes between Hanoverians and Jacobites, one of the secular squabbles of the equivalent period, no longer divide children, as they're not inherited memes in the same way.

Other Comments by jonecc

12. Comment #19235 by Circumspect on January 25, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Several good points made here. Shermer is, indeed, being too sensitive about the feelings of religious people who, frankly, will get quite nasty when faced with any serious challenge to their beliefs. I know many and know this first hand. There is the usual standoff... we see it again in the current dialog between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan (check out beliefnet). So, what to do? BTW, the essential problem isn't strictly religion, it is rigid ideology... of which religions just happen to be particularly good examples.

Other Comments by Circumspect

13. Comment #19241 by mmurray on January 25, 2007 at 6:17 pm

 avatar"The particular problem with religion is that it's passed down from parent to child, so that in the north of Ireland for instance they're fighting today's battles through the prism of yesterday's. Disputes between Hanoverians and Jacobites, one of the secular squabbles of the equivalent period, no longer divide children, as they're not inherited memes in the same way."

Patriotism and loyalty to nation and ethnic group used to be like this, look at the Balkans. In the west, post World War I, we have mostly gone off the `my country right or wrong' approach to life. Humans have a strong tendency to want to divide the world into us and others. The religions that derive from the old testament feed this tendency because the old testament god was insanely jealous. Remember the ten commandments:

You shall have no other gods before Me

If we had religions whose first tenet was to love others as yourself and to not try and convert or influence their religious decisions things would be different IMHO. (Of course they would have low meme survival value.)

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

14. Comment #19242 by Fouad Boussetta on January 25, 2007 at 6:21 pm

 avatarRussell Blackford wrote: "Religion has been treated as beyond robust criticism for too long. (It's not like the favour is returned. How much does the pope go out of his way not to annoy homosexuals, say, or all of those of us with metaphysical naturalist viewpoints, or all the other categories that are demonised in his theology?)"

Absolutely. Religious people don't want their religion to be criticized and judged, but their religion criticizes and judges everything and everyone!

Incredible.

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

15. Comment #19243 by Old Coppernose on January 25, 2007 at 6:25 pm

I am not convinced by Dawkins's argument that without religion there would be "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'…." In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony.


I agree with Shermer on this. There are non-religious nationalist Palestinians who use suicide bombers. No virgins or Ghilman for them (*). I was also surprised that as a Brit, RD I believe misrepresents the N Ireland troubles. The dispute is about nationalism, far more than religion. Protestants often protest the Catholic "Cult of Mary" but apparently many N Ireland Protestants also revere Mary, and in one community Catholics and Protestants used to celebrate her together in a joint parade (though this may have ceased). The IRA has disbanded, reformed and splintered many times, and moved well away from its original form, which was largely created by the Southern government to fight a guerilla war in the North, and disbanded later to become a peaceful socialist political party. Later versions were generally Marxist (and hence presumably atheist) and no more acknowledged the Dublin government as legitimate than one in Storment or Westminster. After getting the Brits out, they intended to move on to a terror campaign in the SOuth to establish a Marxist government there, and the South co-operated with the Northern authorities to try to eradicate them out of self-interest as well as to maintain peaceful relations.

Using gangsterism to raise funds, they, like the Italian mafia, began to value gangsterism for gangsterism's sake, as did the Loyalist/Unionist/"Protestant" terror groups. Despite being supposedly sworn enemies, terror groups from both sides are known to have met up to negotiate deals over territory for gangster activity like Mafia "families".

Imo religion alone is rarely if ever the sole or even perhaps principle origin of conflict, it just simply adds a great deal of fuel to the fire.

Though apparently a naturalist of the kind that keeps his clothes on ( I thought "naturalist" was an old name for a biologist?) Shermer has publicly stated he is not an atheist. however I havent seen him declare how he describes himself. anybody know?

I myself prefer to call myself as a non-theist, as I have a lithp and reject religiouth nonthence.

(*) Many ppl are unaware that in addition to the 72 virgins, the Muslim martyr is promised 28 Ghilman,or young boys. The Age is unspecified, but apparently the relevant verse says "Their faces will shine like the sun." The keeping of adolescent Ghilman by powerful Muslims is a well-established historical phenomonon, and yes the services they provided included *that* one. An Indian friend told me that one potentate declared that he kept two harems: "One of women for show, and one of boys for use."

Other Comments by Old Coppernose

16. Comment #19259 by Ole on January 26, 2007 at 1:29 am

 avatarShermer's comments surprised me, especially after reading Skeptic magazine for so long and watching his comments on Penn and Tellers "Bullshit" episode about the Bible.

If he surprised some isn't that a good thing?

I like that we have people with different strategy. RD's and Sam Harris's direct method seems to work for some people. Dennett's and Shermer's more mild method for others.

Sometimes a "storm" can wake people up - but often a "mild breeze" has a better effect. ;-)

As some said here, Shermer has been debating a lot of strange people (Deepak Chopra, ID-people, etc.) - so he knows you can't use the same tactic all the time.

As a sceptic, I also like to question the claim that suicide bombers only "come from" religion.

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

17. Comment #19272 by Duff on January 26, 2007 at 3:20 am

One can argue that conflicts are not basically religious, but are merely the result of shifting political/geographic tectonic plates. But when one considers religions as the ultimate tribalism, then one really can argue that almost all conflicts are religious in nature.

Other Comments by Duff

18. Comment #19274 by LookToWindward on January 26, 2007 at 3:31 am

I wouldn't criticise RD for his invective because I think any robust debate needs its pit bulls as well as its poodles (and, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of pit bulls on the other side).

But I do wince when I hear him claim that he is not offensive nor goes out of his way to be offensive. Admittedly, his offensiveness is nowhere near as bad as the highly-sensitive religiots make out, but I would say things like calling people 'faith-heads', bashing Bush-voters, and consistently alluding to the high intelligence of atheists - sometimes directly mentioning the corollary (that the 'faith-heads' are unintelligent), sometimes indirectly - is on a par with political commentators calling a liberal a 'pinko' or someone calling a computer scientist a dorky nerd. Not highly offensive, but certainly not completely inoffensive. I think Richard should be a bit more honest about the fact that he does often intend to raise his opponents' hackles.

Other Comments by LookToWindward

19. Comment #19292 by debaser71 on January 26, 2007 at 5:47 am

Sherman is ok but he attacks a strawman when he suggests that atheists think that certain conflicts are ONLY caused by religion. All I like to suggest is that religion plays a role and people should stop denying the role religion plays. Both the bad and the good. What some people refuse is to acknowledge is that people divide themselves based on religious identity. Remove the religion and these people might just be part of the same group. That religion can cause very harsh ingroup/outgroup dynamics. Religion is an artifical division.

For the record Shermer is also motivated by self interest, he can not be too harsh on religion because he's vested in not being so. I've also heard SHermer say that he's skeptical about the claims of global warming...(there was an Al Gore TED presentation where he commented on this).

I also think it's important to point out that to cause change activism and effort must come from different angles, from harsher Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins type barbed rhetoric to nice pleasant accomodation from other folk (like say the ebay atheist guy). Different people respond differently to these efforts and when there are many different efforts going on at the same time, it is a good thing!

Other Comments by debaser71

20. Comment #19294 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 5:58 am

 avatarComment #19274 by LookToWindward "calling people 'faith-heads', bashing Bush-voters, and consistently alluding to the high intelligence of atheists - sometimes directly mentioning the corollary (that the 'faith-heads' are unintelligent), sometimes indirectly - is on a par with political commentators calling a liberal a 'pinko' or someone calling a computer scientist a dorky nerd"

There's a clear purpose, in my view, why Dawkins uses terms that others might regard as derogatory - he is trying to debunk their "protected status" in dialog about religion. He is deliberately trying to break down perceptions by using ridicule. I really don't care two hoots if this upsets people, because long-term we need to shift public consciousness and this is a way of doing so.

On your broader point regarding more intelligent people being less religious (or more atheistic), that is a verifiable and testable thesis and is totally justified.

Other Comments by Dogbreath

21. Comment #19295 by Johan on January 26, 2007 at 6:07 am

" In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony."

This argument is bloody poor. One could also say that these events were driven by the desire to take over certain territories, and therefore call it a geographical issue. But it's almost always an issue of taking over a piece of land from "the other flock", people of some other faith.

Is not the never-ending struggle in the Middle East about which group of this or that religion should occupy which piece of land?

Were not the crusades about freeing Jerusalem, the city which the Christians claimed their own holy city, from the Muslims?

And regardless of how much one might disagree with the politics of the Bush administration, the 9/11 bombers were not its political opponents, not democrats, not socialists but Muslims.
And they wanted to wound the heart of the Great Satan, not the heart of the Great Evil Republican, or something like that.

In my opinion it seems much harder for religious people to share this word (or parts of it) with adherents of different faiths, than for people of a certain political convictions to get along with their political antagonists.

So, please, stop pussyfooting around religion because it's to blame "only" 99% of the time.

Other Comments by Johan

22. Comment #19296 by anon on January 26, 2007 at 6:17 am

 avatarShermer does sometimes go too far to push a NOMA style view of religion and science, so that believers aren't scared away from skepticism. I think he'd rather avoid the conflict, but the conflict seems inevitable. Apart from that he's a great character and awesome ally of reason, and his approach should be complementary to Dawkins'.

He seems unfortunately to have fallen for the misconception that atheists think religion is the sole root of all evil. Dawkins himself makes it *explicitly* clear in the book that this is not the case.

Other Comments by anon

23. Comment #19297 by CDG on January 26, 2007 at 6:24 am

Two Atheist Armies would never go to Battle! Pick any battle in history and imagine erasing the minds of the combatants of all religious propaganda and delusions of heaven and virgins. Their own life and that of their loved ones would become instantly precious and the reasons for fighting would not be worth taking a life or giving one. I suspect they would would work out any grievances and live by the "Golden Rule" as it should have always been implemented, not to appease the 'eye in the sky' but as the basic tenet of human respect towards one another. How did the Reilgious ever get to steal the mantle as protectors of life, while subverting it? The only way to achieve that eternal human goal of 'Peace on Earth' is for all its inhabitants to one day be Atheists.

Other Comments by CDG

24. Comment #19299 by gimlibengloin on January 26, 2007 at 6:42 am

CDG (23)

"The only way to achieve that eternal human goal of 'Peace on Earth' is for all its inhabitants to one day be Atheists."

Hmmm. You obviously havn't read this article have you?
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4853

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

25. Comment #19309 by CDG on January 26, 2007 at 7:21 am

gimlibengoin (24)

Just did and found it to have no relation to my assertion. In fact quite the contrary as nothing advocated in the article would ever be implemented toward another by an Atheist due to the Golden Rule tenet (among many other reasons)
I mentioned above. I think that it will take hundreds if not thousands of years for the systematic disillusionment of the religious to take place and eventually seek refuge in reality and science.

Other Comments by CDG

26. Comment #19311 by gimlibengloin on January 26, 2007 at 7:31 am

CDG (25)

Did you read it with your eyes open?

"nothing advocated in the article would ever be implemented toward another by an atheist"

Such an assertion only demonstrates that atheists have truly lost their reasoning faculties. The subject of that article IS an atheist and is advocating culling half the human population.
Further what about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Sadaam Husein (Sky news recently acknowledged him as an atheist who merely pretended to be a muslim in order to gain arab support.
Of course you'll say they didn't kill FOR atheism but I say they were atheists. And their atheism was fundamental to their ideology

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

27. Comment #19316 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 7:53 am

 avatarComment #19311 by gimlibengloin "Sadaam Husein (Sky news recently acknowledged him as an atheist who merely pretended to be a muslim in order to gain arab support."

Sky News? Well, there's an unimpeachable source for you!! Dream on.

Other Comments by Dogbreath

28. Comment #19317 by yesspam on January 26, 2007 at 7:53 am

 avatarComment 26.

Unpleasant and farcial though the article is, it nowhere advocates 'culling half the human population.' Reducing human fertility, and cutting back health services to the old, is not comparable with a Mao, or Pol Pot type of mass killing. What interests me, is that the web site is as appalled by the suggestion that private property rights might not be respected, as by any threat this nutter makes to humanity.

Right wing nutter web site exposes nutters nutter views, so what!!! Name me a Humanist who would agree with the views proposed here.

Other Comments by yesspam

29. Comment #19318 by gimlibengloin on January 26, 2007 at 7:58 am

CDG (25)
Well done for reading the article, though.

Dogbreath (27)

well, the fact is that Hussein WAS an atheist and it is well known that he modelled himself on Mr Stalin whom I notice you don't mention. Or, Pol Pot or Mao for that matter. And the source on Sky News was one of their politics of the Middle East experts.
By the way check this out on Hitler
www.papillonsartpalace.com/endC

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

30. Comment #19320 by gimlibengloin on January 26, 2007 at 8:05 am

Yesspam (28)

"Name me a Humanist who would agree with the views proposed here."

Uhh, Dr John Reid, maybe?

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

31. Comment #19322 by Kimpatsu on January 26, 2007 at 8:06 am

 avatarDon't forget that Shermer (whose work, for the most part, I admire, BTW--more on that later) used to be a militant evangelical faith-head. I wonder how much of the apologetics impulse still lingers...?
As I say, Shermer's attacks on ID are eloquent, but he now seems to have gone completely bonkers and is arguing that capitalism is naturally justified by evolution. In which case, slavery must be, but Shermer has not (so far, I await his next book on the subject) recognised this inevitability. What I would like Shermer to understand is what David Hume described over 200 years ago: "You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'". Just because capitalism might (and I find his argument a non sequitur, anyway) be explained by evolution, doesn't mean that it's JUSTIFIED by evolution (or any other political philosophy, for that matter--not that I'm calling evolution a political philosophy). Shermer's views might explain how capitalism came to be, but Shermer (and I hope he's reading and will post a rebuttal if I misunderstand him) seems to be saying that because capitalism can be EXPLAINED by evolution, as a political philosophy it is right and justified. I would have thought that in light of Enron and other scandals, Shermer would think critically about capitalism with the same rigour that he addresses ID. Or does it take a skeptic of capitalism to point out the error of his thinking, in the way that it took a rational thinker to show Shermer why his evangelical Xianity was wrong...?

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

32. Comment #19325 by Sam on January 26, 2007 at 8:28 am

 avatarWhile i both respect and admire Shermer for his work on pseudoscience, i think he is on the wrong side in this issue.

If you are satisfied with the way things are now, if you think our way of dealing with religion in the past has been a tremendous success and want nothing more than to keep the status quo, then go ahead and listen to the likes of Shermer, because that is what their approach basically boils down to.

Other Comments by Sam

33. Comment #19333 by CDG on January 26, 2007 at 9:00 am

gimlibengloin (26)

When and how the realities of overpopulation hits us globally -is yet to be determined- In certain areas of the world it happens by design (China's one child policy)or naturally (Africa famine). All have consequences. China determined it better do something now or risk not being able to sustain their population in the future. Not by the barrel of the gun but through economic pressure. Although this has come with a great deal of misery it may prove to be better than 500 million dying in 2040.

Regarding murderer's of history? I don't think you want to go down that road? If we added all the deaths atrributed to God and Religion you would be ashamed. We could start with the Popes?

Other Comments by CDG

34. Comment #19336 by gimlibengloin on January 26, 2007 at 9:06 am

CDG (33)

Oh I don't dispute that atrocities have been committed by religion I simply dispute the implication that violence would be resolved by everybody becoming atheists or that it is simply the fault of religion. Man is violent and whether he is religious or not he will find a way of expressing it. If you look at my posts on this thread and the one I replied to you will see this

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

35. Comment #19339 by CDG on January 26, 2007 at 9:21 am

gimloinblog (34)

What I am saying is that for hundreds if not thousands of years of trials and tribulations by both the religious and even some misguided Atheists, we may hopefully come to the conclusion that this is the only life and we may then move to put it at place of the highest value. In the meantime, most will just consider it a pit stop on the way to eternal bliss, and we will have to live with the violence that mindset brings to the table.

At the very least two Atheist armies would need one hell of a reason for bloodshed.

Other Comments by CDG

36. Comment #19348 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 10:53 am

 avatarComment #19318 by gimlibengloin "Dogbreath (27)

well, the fact is that Hussein WAS an atheist and it is well known that he modelled himself on Mr Stalin whom I notice you don't mention. Or, Pol Pot or Mao for that matter. And the source on Sky News was one of their politics of the Middle East experts.
By the way check this out on Hitler
www.papillonsartpalace.com/endC"

And your evidence for Hussein being atheist is..? It wouldn't happen to be that poor videophone clip of him reciting the name of Allah as they tried to hood him in the execution chamber, would it?

But, you seem to be trying to assert that one nutcase on a website is evidence of humanist/atheist moral atrocity writ large. Just what what are you trying to say - that all religious believers/atheists are bad/good, or any combination? You just seem to like to find and spread hate.

Other Comments by Dogbreath

37. Comment #19349 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 10:53 am

 avatarand the link didn't work

Other Comments by Dogbreath

38. Comment #19394 by daithelowis on January 26, 2007 at 10:05 pm

I admire Michael Shermer greatly. Was first introduced to him from Penn & Teller Bullshit!. I've since read many of his books, am a member of his Skeptic Society, watched numerous debates of his, and have met him in person. He hosted Dawkins at Cal Tech late last year that I was priveleged to attend.

He does seem to have a less militant view on religion than Harris or Dawkins. He's argued for why those of faith can accept evolution. Of course, he doesn't really argue against religion. He does try to avoid it but has also written on it.

It seems he prefers to focus his efforts on the science aspect rather than being anti-religion. This does not mean that he isn't probably atheist. He is quoted on Salon.com as such: "I prefer not to use the term. Although I guess I am an atheist. I just don't believe in God."

Source: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index.html


In any event, Shermer and Dawkins are friends, they just happen to disagree on certain tactics. It shouldn't distract from the fact that Shermer is fighting the good fight, just a little differently. I continue to have great respect for him.

Other Comments by daithelowis

39. Comment #19404 by Jiffy on January 27, 2007 at 12:27 am

"Name me a Humanist who would agree with the views proposed here."

Uhh, Dr John Reid, maybe?

You mean the same Dr John Reid who has recently been described as the cabinets most senior catholic.

Other Comments by Jiffy
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: