Print
I'm an atheist, BUT . . .
by Richard Dawkins
Of all the questions I fielded during the course of my recent book tour, the only ones that really depressed me were those that began "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." What follows such an opening is nearly always unhelpful, nihilistic or – worse – suffused with a sort of exultant negativity. Notice, by the way, the distinction from another favourite genre: "I used to be an atheist, but . . ." That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, practised by, among many others, C S Lewis, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins. It is designed to gain street cred before the writer starts on about Jesus, and it is amazing how often it works. Look out for it, and be forewarned.
I've noticed five variants of I'm-an-atheist-buttery, and I'll list them in turn, in the hope that others will recognize them, be armed against them, and perhaps extend the list by contributing examples from their own experience.
I could bear any of these downers, if they were uttered in something approaching a tone of regret or concern. On the contrary. The tone of voice is almost always gleeful, and accompanied by a self-satisfied smirk. Anybody who opens with "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." can be more or less guaranteed to be one of those religious fellow-travellers who, in Dan Dennett's wickedly perceptive phrase, believes in belief. They may not be religious themselves, but they love the idea that other people are religious. This brings me to my second category of naysayers.
I dealt with this in the last chapter of The God Delusion, 'A Much Needed Gap' and also, at more length, in Unweaving the Rainbow. Here I'll make one additional point. Did you notice the patronizing condescension in the quotations I just listed? You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that. I suspect that the only reason many cling to religion is that they have been let down by our educational system and don't understand the options on offer. This is certainly true of most people who think they are creationists. They have simply not been taught the alternative. Probably the same is true of the belittling myth that people 'need' religion. On the contrary, I am tempted to say "I believe in people . . ." And this leads me to the next example.
At a conference in San Diego which I attended at the end of my book tour, Sam Harris and I were attacked by two "I'm an atheist, but . . ." merchants. One of these quoted Golda Meir when she was asked whether she believed in God: "I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God." Our smirking critic substituted his own version: "I believe in people, and people believe in God."
Religion, he presumably thought, is like a great work of art. Many works of art, rather, because different religions are so varied. I was reminded of Nicholas Humphrey's devastating indictment of an extreme version of this kind of thing, quoted in Chapter 9 of The God Delusion. Humphrey was discussing the discovery in the mountains of Peru of the frozen remains of a young Inca girl who was, according to the archaeologist who found her, the victim of a religious sacrifice. Humphrey described a television documentary in which viewers were invited . . .
I share the outrage that Humphrey eloquently expressed: -
It would be unfair to accuse our critic in San Diego of complicity in such an odious attitude towards the Inca 'ice maiden'. But I hope at least he will think twice before repeating that bon mot (as he obviously thought of it): "I believe in people, and people believe in God." I could have overlooked the patronizing condescension of his remark, if only he hadn't sounded so smugly satisfied by this lamentable state of affairs.
There are various points. One is that the choir is a lot bigger than many people think it is, especially in America. But, again especially in America, it is largely a closet choir, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out. Judging by the thanks I received all over North America, the encouragement that people like Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and I are able to give is greatly appreciated. So is this website, as I heard again and again. My thanks, yet again, to Josh.
A more subtle reason for preaching to the choir is the need to raise consciousness. When the feminists raised our consciousness about sexist pronouns, they would have been preaching to the choir where the more substantive issues of the rights of women and the evils of discrimination against them were concerned. But that decent, liberal choir still needed its consciousness raising with respect to everyday language. However right-on we may have been on the political issues of rights and discrimination, we nevertheless still unconsciously bought into linguistic conventions that made half the human race feel excluded.
There are other linguistic conventions that still need to go the same way as sexist pronouns, and the atheist choir is not exempt. We all need our consciousness raised. Atheists as well as theists unconsciously buy into our society's convention that religion has uniquely privileged status. I've already mentioned the convention that we must be especially polite and respectful to a person's faith. And I never tire of drawing attention to society's tacit acceptance that it is right to label small children with the religious opinions of their parents.
That's consciousness-raising, and atheists need it just as much as anybody else because atheists, too, have been lulled into overlooking the anomaly: religious opinion is the one kind of parental opinion that – by almost universal consent – can be battened upon children who are, in truth, too young to know what their opinion really is.
Sam Harris and I have both received criticism of this kind, and Nick Humphrey probably has too, for the quotation given above. Yet if you look at the language we employ, it is no more strong or intemperate than anybody would use if criticizing a political or economic point of view: no stronger or more intemperate than any theatre critic, art critic or book critic when writing a negative review. Our language sounds strong and intemperate only because of the same weird convention I have already mentioned, that religious faith is uniquely privileged: above and beyond criticism. On pages 20-21 of The God Delusion I gave a wonderful quote from Douglas Adams on the subject.
Book critics or theatre critics can be derisively negative and earn delighted praise for the trenchant wit of their review. A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a critic of religion employ a fraction of the same direct forthrightness, and polite society will purse its lips and shake its head: even secular polite society, and especially that part of secular society that loves to announce, "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ."
I've noticed five variants of I'm-an-atheist-buttery, and I'll list them in turn, in the hope that others will recognize them, be armed against them, and perhaps extend the list by contributing examples from their own experience.
1. I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it!
I could bear any of these downers, if they were uttered in something approaching a tone of regret or concern. On the contrary. The tone of voice is almost always gleeful, and accompanied by a self-satisfied smirk. Anybody who opens with "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." can be more or less guaranteed to be one of those religious fellow-travellers who, in Dan Dennett's wickedly perceptive phrase, believes in belief. They may not be religious themselves, but they love the idea that other people are religious. This brings me to my second category of naysayers.
2. I'm an atheist, but people need religion. What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to comfort the bereaved? How are you going to fill the need?
I dealt with this in the last chapter of The God Delusion, 'A Much Needed Gap' and also, at more length, in Unweaving the Rainbow. Here I'll make one additional point. Did you notice the patronizing condescension in the quotations I just listed? You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that. I suspect that the only reason many cling to religion is that they have been let down by our educational system and don't understand the options on offer. This is certainly true of most people who think they are creationists. They have simply not been taught the alternative. Probably the same is true of the belittling myth that people 'need' religion. On the contrary, I am tempted to say "I believe in people . . ." And this leads me to the next example.
3. I'm an atheist, but religion is one of the glories of human culture.
At a conference in San Diego which I attended at the end of my book tour, Sam Harris and I were attacked by two "I'm an atheist, but . . ." merchants. One of these quoted Golda Meir when she was asked whether she believed in God: "I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God." Our smirking critic substituted his own version: "I believe in people, and people believe in God."
Religion, he presumably thought, is like a great work of art. Many works of art, rather, because different religions are so varied. I was reminded of Nicholas Humphrey's devastating indictment of an extreme version of this kind of thing, quoted in Chapter 9 of The God Delusion. Humphrey was discussing the discovery in the mountains of Peru of the frozen remains of a young Inca girl who was, according to the archaeologist who found her, the victim of a religious sacrifice. Humphrey described a television documentary in which viewers were invited . . .
" . . . to marvel at the spiritual commitment of the Inca priests and to share with the girl on her last journey her pride and excitement at having been selected for the signal honour of being sacrificed. The message of the television programme was in effect that the practice of human sacrifice was in its own way a glorious cultural invention – another jewel in the crown of multiculturalism . . ."
I share the outrage that Humphrey eloquently expressed: -
"Yet, how dare anyone even suggest this? How dare they invite us – in our sitting rooms, watching television – to feel uplifted by contemplating an act of ritual murder: the murder of a dependent child by a group of stupid, puffed up, superstitious, ignorant old men? How dare they invite us to find good for ourselves in contemplating an immoral action against someone else?"
It would be unfair to accuse our critic in San Diego of complicity in such an odious attitude towards the Inca 'ice maiden'. But I hope at least he will think twice before repeating that bon mot (as he obviously thought of it): "I believe in people, and people believe in God." I could have overlooked the patronizing condescension of his remark, if only he hadn't sounded so smugly satisfied by this lamentable state of affairs.
4. I'm an atheist, but you are only preaching to the choir. What's the point?
There are various points. One is that the choir is a lot bigger than many people think it is, especially in America. But, again especially in America, it is largely a closet choir, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out. Judging by the thanks I received all over North America, the encouragement that people like Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and I are able to give is greatly appreciated. So is this website, as I heard again and again. My thanks, yet again, to Josh.
A more subtle reason for preaching to the choir is the need to raise consciousness. When the feminists raised our consciousness about sexist pronouns, they would have been preaching to the choir where the more substantive issues of the rights of women and the evils of discrimination against them were concerned. But that decent, liberal choir still needed its consciousness raising with respect to everyday language. However right-on we may have been on the political issues of rights and discrimination, we nevertheless still unconsciously bought into linguistic conventions that made half the human race feel excluded.
There are other linguistic conventions that still need to go the same way as sexist pronouns, and the atheist choir is not exempt. We all need our consciousness raised. Atheists as well as theists unconsciously buy into our society's convention that religion has uniquely privileged status. I've already mentioned the convention that we must be especially polite and respectful to a person's faith. And I never tire of drawing attention to society's tacit acceptance that it is right to label small children with the religious opinions of their parents.
That's consciousness-raising, and atheists need it just as much as anybody else because atheists, too, have been lulled into overlooking the anomaly: religious opinion is the one kind of parental opinion that – by almost universal consent – can be battened upon children who are, in truth, too young to know what their opinion really is.
5. I'm an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your intemperately strong language.
Sam Harris and I have both received criticism of this kind, and Nick Humphrey probably has too, for the quotation given above. Yet if you look at the language we employ, it is no more strong or intemperate than anybody would use if criticizing a political or economic point of view: no stronger or more intemperate than any theatre critic, art critic or book critic when writing a negative review. Our language sounds strong and intemperate only because of the same weird convention I have already mentioned, that religious faith is uniquely privileged: above and beyond criticism. On pages 20-21 of The God Delusion I gave a wonderful quote from Douglas Adams on the subject.
Book critics or theatre critics can be derisively negative and earn delighted praise for the trenchant wit of their review. A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a critic of religion employ a fraction of the same direct forthrightness, and polite society will purse its lips and shake its head: even secular polite society, and especially that part of secular society that loves to announce, "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, November 18, 2006 | PermalinkComments 101 - 150 of 274 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers102. Comment #7594 by Jonathan Dore on November 18, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Jesse writes: "I'm pretty certain there's no afterlife, but that doesn't stop me from desperately wishing there was one... nobody wants to just cease cognition forever."Hi Jesse. That's interesting, because I feel exactly the opposite. To me, the prospect of eternal life (in any sense in which we can conceive of eternity, i.e. an infinite extension of time) is a truly horrifying thought, whatever the circumstances. Just imagine spending an infinite amount of time learning, say, every language in the world (there are about 36,000), for long enough to speak them all fluently; then all the history of the world, until you can recite the dates backward; then getting to know each person who has ever lived personally, as your closest friend; then every aspect of every science; then do that for all the potentially inhabited worlds in the galaxy, and in the universe, travelling at a speed of, say, 1 mile per hour between stars to get to each world in turn. Then when you'd accomplished all that, imagine starting all over again at the beginning, and repeating the whole process. Now imagine going through the whole process a hundred times, or a million, or 14 trillion times. Are you any better off? No, because at the end of the 14 trillionth time, when you are so catatonically bored that you long more than anything to do something new (but of course, there *is* nothing new any more), understand that you are still no nearer the end of eternity than you were at the beginning. It has no end, and you are doomed to repeat everything you have ever done or could ever do for ever, without hope of escape.
Now *that* is a truly terrifying thought, and yet most people unthinkingly look forward to eternity in heaven as if it would just be laughter and champagne. The unconscious assumption they are clearly making is that they would like things to continue, pretty much as they know them, for, say, another life-time's worth, but without having to work -- a lifetime's holiday, if you like. Beyond that, they're just not thinking. I think it's instructive that many very old people, in their 90s say, are already jaded with the weariness of life, and look forward to the repose of the grave.
I'm hoping for a long life, but I'm looking forward to death at the end of it. Once I've had my decades in the sun, and hopefully done something enjoyable and worthwhile with my life, the oblivion of non-existence will be just fine and dandy by me, thanks.
104. Comment #7599 by Mal on November 18, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Re: 242Jonathon Dore
Hello. I can appreciate that you personally may eventually tire of eternal life, but would'nt it be nice to be able to have the choice (and you may find at some point you would change your mind given you had eternity to contemplate the prospect). Besides in a potentially infinite universe there are potentially infinite things to discover.
106. Comment #7605 by Jesse on November 18, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Hey Jonathan. That actually does make quite a lot of sense, and although I'd thought about what eternal life would be like, I hadn't given it quite as close a look as you have, and it certainly sounds fearsome.However, where you say "doomed to," I say "free to;" as I see it, there are an infinite number of things to do in this universe. If I got really bored I'd probably see if I could memorize all of pi, then recite it for some unsuspecting skeptic. :)
My ultimate goal is to know everything -- to finally completely understand this system of which I am only a part. Of course, as I am human, I've all but resigned to falling somewhat short of this goal!
107. Comment #7613 by Mal on November 18, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Re:253Rick, the difference between being blind/deaf and believing in things that can be seen/heard and believing in God is that with things that are seen and heard you can physically verify with literally billions of other people whether they exist or not (unless you subscribe to the notion that everyone else is a liar or that they themselves do not exist). God only exists in the minds of the faithful and as yet no universally accepted proof of his/her/its/their existence has come to light. If it had, this would be a pointless topic of discussion.
108. Comment #7617 by vega on November 18, 2006 at 10:37 pm
256 "I believe our brains are like FM radios, they receive and broadcast. But the real interesting stuff is going on at different levels, beyond the vacuum tubes or silicon chips or neural networks."I think Deepak Chopra is back :)
ps - FM radios don't broadcast.
109. Comment #7621 by Mal on November 18, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Re: 256Rick, 'blue' does not exist only in our minds. Blue can be measured using a light spectrometer, and whereas we may or may not subjectively see the same shade, we can both agree that it is called 'blue'.
As for 'music'. We can both put on a record and agree that it is, say 'God Only Knows' by the Beach Boys. That does not mean to say my experience of the music is exactly the same as yours, and of course I cannot physically prove this because the technology does not exist (at least yet) for us to switch bodies. For example you may hate the song and I may love it, but we can both agree that it is the same song, and it is definitely being played.
However, you cannot physically prove to me that you 'experience' God, or if you can I would be delighted to know how you do, and so would millions of other non-believers.
110. Comment #7622 by walter on November 18, 2006 at 10:54 pm
The REAL reason Jesus forgives all sins is because if he didn't it would seriously hurt the collection plate.You CAN teach evolution to people of average intelligence. And you can even get them to understand the mechanism proper.(mendelian selection not lamarckianism) But you CANNOT get them to look at the natural world and think "Just because this is the way nature works (survival of the fittest) that doesn't mean that that's the way things ought to be."
Fascism is what you get when you teach evolution to dummies.
When you take god away from people the parts of their brains that previously worshipped god simply find the next best substitute.(usually nature)
Did you really think that ALL of those anti-intellectual folks you knew in high school were somehow exceptions to the species? Part of the reason religion persists is because the cave man never went away. He had always been their all the while that scientists were busy in their own worlds.
Scientists discover the truth.
Religion invents the truth. This gives it a tremendous advantage over science. Indeed no religion survives which doesn't flatter people in some way or another.
Only 'ape-a-phobia' can explain the tremendous lengths fundamentalists go to to disprove that which is self evident to anyone who has observed an ape in a zoo.
111. Comment #7636 by vega on November 18, 2006 at 11:45 pm
264 "So why demean people whose sense of identity includes God?"One reason is that, over the centuries, those whose sense of identity included God, have caused untold harm in the name of their God. Crusades anyone? Thousands of men and women accused of witchcraft burnt alive by 'good Christians' doing 'God's will' as the Bible commands. These were not fanatics. These were people who honestly thought they were doing morally good works supported by their religious leaders.
The God delusion KILLS people.
I cannot recall a single case of anyone coming to any harm because of a difference of opinion over a scientific theory.
112. Comment #7638 by Mal on November 18, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Re: 264Rick, I disagree that science has little to say about our emotions, memories, and ideas etc. Indeed there is a whole branch of science - nueroscience - which is devoted to these very issues. I realise it is a relatively new field and there is much still to discover, but are you seriously suggesting that because we do not currently have all the answers we should just stop looking for them and ascribe them all to God?
Incidentally, I am not trying to demean you. Far from it. I am just engaging in an (at least so far) rational debate to which I hope we are both bringing up some interesting points.
As for pushing your eyeball (eugh!) and seeing colours, I am afraid I am not a professional scientist, so I would not wish to give you an answer which may not be strictly accurate. I realise this probably sounds like a cop out on my part, but maybe somebody else with a more scientific background could provide us both with an explanation.
113. Comment #7639 by Mike on November 18, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Re #3. To call religion a "glory" of human culture may be too strong. At the same time, however, I don't see how it's possible to deny that religion is an impressive facet of human culture. Any idea or set of ideas that can inspire so many people -- some to evil, others to good -- is impressive any way you look at it. In that respect religion _is_ like a great work of art.That's not to say people should believe it literally. But I hope no one is suggesting that we should shun reading the Jewish and Christian Bibles -- nor the Iliad, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the rest. There are valuable ideas there, even if the mythologies behind them are false.
114. Comment #7649 by walter on November 19, 2006 at 12:33 am
reply to 'think' (oxymoron)UNGA-BUNGA God love me so me not come from hairy, smelly ape UNGA-BUNGA!
UNGA-BUNGA Me look in mirror and me see mr. america UNGA-BUNGA!
UNGA-BUNGA Me drive gas guzzling suv he-man truck UNGA-BUNGA!
UNGA-BUNGA Me vote for Bush in 04 UNGA-BUNGA!
UNGA-BUNGA How can me come from slug UNGA-BUNGA?
UNGA-BUNGA If thing exist then how can thing not have maker UNGA-BUNGA?
UNGA-BUNGA Why butterflies called butterflies if them not made of butter UNGA-BUNGA?
UNGA-BUNGA How virus do so much damage if virus so small UNGA-BUNGA?
UNGA-BUNGA Me not understand evolution but me not stupid. Therefore evolution stupid UNGA-BUNGA!
116. Comment #7658 by Mal on November 19, 2006 at 1:17 am
Re:274Rick, some good points again, which I will attempt to answer.
Firstly, I don't think even you could deny that the mind is inextricably linked with the brain, and as such comes under the influence of neuroscience.
Secondly, philosophy is the study of the foundations of knowledge, and therefore the sciences, being the basis of many branches of knowledge, surely are interlinked with philosophy
too. Indeed the philosopher Daniel Dennett combines philosophy and biology in many of his arguments.
I have a poker game to get to so I may shortly have to leave this thread.
Have a good one,
Mal.
118. Comment #7661 by Tom on November 19, 2006 at 1:41 am
Who are we kidding as atheists ?Atheists, by far and large, have no or few children. Obviously they will die out, sooner rather than later.
The average religious person has 3 or 4 children.
How long does it take, given a 50-50 split between atheists and religious for the atheists to die out to an insignificant percentage of the population (say less than 1%) ? 75 years.
There is only the darwin way to fight, and you can't beat darwin.
119. Comment #7663 by Danny on November 19, 2006 at 1:58 am
I'm an atheist, but I could be wrong.All religions seem to have layers and layers of constructed conventions (and convenient lies). They are usually either self-evidently silly and/or traceable to social artifacts, often related to maintaining power hierarchies.
But the fundamental questions of physics and the universe, the nature of reality and the role of consciousness as a subjective mirror on these things - these are hard questions.
Occam's Razor points to atheism as the most sensible starting position. As far as we understand them, mathematical logic and modelling offer a systematic approach to working with what we find. Within this framework, we can find simple explanations for apparently bizarre phenomenon like the complexity of lifeforms.
Given all this, the rational approach seems way, way preferable to the superstition of religion (putting aside Pascal's wager :-).
But it should be remembered that however optimal this approach is for explaining what we perceive as the universe, it may still not be the "best" or even for that matter "true". Newtonian physics was replaced by a new model, and that's fairly fundamental stuff.
If we wish to be rational about all this, we should at least acknowledge the possibility that we are wrong. But aside from that, I don't really have any issues with priest-bashing...
120. Comment #7666 by walter on November 19, 2006 at 2:07 am
reply to comment #7661I agree that atheists probably have fewer children. If not for any other reason than because the poor have lots of children and atheism is rarest among the poor and uneducated.
A futurist might well imagine a world dominated by religion where evolution is regarded as a 'dirty secret' that only a handfull of 'elite' people know about. Perhaps these people are permitted to go about their work (in secret) because the survival of technology is partly dependent upon an accurate understanding of evolutionary theory.
And young people who question 'the faith' are hauled away as thought criminals of some kind.
Does anyone out there know of any science fiction author who has written something similar to this scenario?
121. Comment #7668 by Kergillian on November 19, 2006 at 2:27 am
I'm an Atheist, but... I used to be a Christian. Thankfully, not any more.I'm an Atheist, but... I used to be uncomfortable admitting it. Listening to your lectures and watching your specials has helped me come to terms with a world where God isn't real.
I'm an Atheist, but... I know a lot of people still believe in "God". Keep spreading the truth of reason and rationality, and keep encouraging Atheists to speak up! There are more of us than anyone knows!
123. Comment #7671 by sanjiv on November 19, 2006 at 2:32 am
Comment #7437 by Penny Roberts"BUT I never admit it to a religious person who I otherwise like - unless of course I am asked - because it seems tantamount to telling them that I think they are deluded, foolish and misguided."
When a person says he's Christian (or Muslim or Hindu), doesn't that tantamount to saying that the other guy is deluded, foolish and misguided because he doesn't believe in Jesus? Just a thought....think about it. This is exactly what Richard is trying to hammer home. If we atheist bend over backwards to avoid disturbing the religious waters, we can share the blame for religion's longevity.
124. Comment #7673 by Mal on November 19, 2006 at 2:49 am
Re:284Walter, try 1984 by George Orwell, although the enforcers of thought crime are politicians and the crimes themselves are against state issued edicts not religious ones.(Although maybe you already are aware of this classic piece of literature and were being slightly sarcastic to those unfortunate enough not to have read it. It was difficult to tell from the tone of your comment)
125. Comment #7677 by seals on November 19, 2006 at 2:58 am
RE 270. Comment #7642 by Tom C - " Where are comments #7321 and 7322? Many others are missing? ...As you weave your own version of reality on this site,... " etci think those missing comments may have been on other topics (down the right hand side of the homepage) - it seems that the comments are numbered within a topic (the blue header line on each comment) and also as a hash number which of course will have gaps cos it includes all topics on this site.
Hope this helps.
126. Comment #7679 by walter on November 19, 2006 at 3:08 am
reply to 289I apologize if I seemed sarcastic. I was about to mention 1984 but then decided to shorten the comment at the last minute. I was thinking along the lines of a more recent author who perhaps had been taken aback by the growing power of fundamentalists and decided to write a story similar to 1984.
127. Comment #7683 by seals on November 19, 2006 at 3:23 am
180. Comment #7497 by Glub - "Is there no atheist here who is able to show Comment maker why he is wrong?"Why should an atheist reply to Comment maker? If s/he has no morals, that's his problem, nothing to do with atheism (or religion for that matter). Should his comment even be dignified with a reply, i don't think so.
128. Comment #7684 by Mal on November 19, 2006 at 3:24 am
Re:292Walter, don't worry, I wasn't having a go at you. Have you read any of Neil Asher's Polity novels. Although they do not on the whole specifically deal with this subject, one of them, called Line of Polity, does explore the subject somewhat It helps if you read them in the correct order though.
129. Comment #7690 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 4:04 am
Hi, Solas"...My point is that, as of now, we don't have any historical data of people without some form of religion - and no modern evidence that would indicate that religion will become obsolete."
"We do actually. Buddhism does not require any belief in a deity (nor does it exclude such belief) but millions of Buddhists practice their spirituality without needing to believe in a deity, and have done so for a very long time. And we do a have empirical data which points to declining religious belief and observance in Europe and elsewhere. As a general rule of thumb (there are always exceptions) societies become less religious as they become richer and more educated. "
Religion is about having spiritual values. The content of these spiritual values, for us individually, may include many notions of 'god'. I don't subscribe to the idea that the term 'god' can be narrowly defined - as Dawkins would like to do. The history of 'god' tells a different story. Gods come in all shapes and sizes, no one size fits all! I don't think this makes the idea, the concept, of 'god', meaningless. Quiet the contrary. 'God' is whatever. Whatever people find to be the supreme value in their lives, or values, as in the case of gods and goddesses. To seek to put god into a box is to make the concept meaningless. 'God' is a bit like a label, a label that, historically, has been used to differentiate spiritual values from material values.
As regards Buddhism not requiring a deity - I take it you mean a supreme deity. Yes, on this idea of a supreme deity, Buddhism is agnostic. However, as regards gods, the Buddhist position seems to be: "The Buddha considered the gods (devas) real, although subject to birth and rebirth. But since they have a form of existence far above man, it is completely consistent for Buddha to obtain the help of the gods for worldly matters not related to salvation (such as prayers for rain or children). The gods, too, come and go, depending on their respective karma. And according to many passages in the Pali canon, they should be venerated. From this angle we encounter within the domain of Buddhism something that is quite opposite of atheism: polytheism, often imbued with magical practices. (Hans Kung: Christinaity and the World Religions).
(as an aside, Christianity can quite easily become non-theist. I've even heard talk about Christian atheists! Lloyd Geering wrote a paper, for the Jesus Seminar on 'Christianity Minus Theism' - later to become part of his book, Christianity without God).
Perhaps, in the future, we might find more people becoming atheists. Yet, all that term means is simply a denial of theism. It certainty is not a denial of spiritual values, in and of themselves. God, gods and goddess, in whatever form the human imagination can devise them to be - will continue to populate the spiritual world of many people. And, Dawkins notwithstanding, there is nothing that can be done about it. A purely naturalistic philosophy will just not appeal to some people - and no, I don't think they are necessarily stupid. The human mind is quite capable of compartmentalizing two different world-views. (I'm not a subscriber to the NOMA idea of separate mageisterium. Let science knock theology on it's head by all means - let science leave no rock for theology to hid under. But science steps on sacred ground when it seeks to deny individuals the right to hold and to express spiritual values, when it seeks to deny religion a place at the table).
Maryhelena: "….then why the fuss over state sponsored faith schools in the UK? If there is no need, no request, for such schools then why is the UK government wanting to spend money on them?
"The problem is that there is not enough fuss. There is no need for them but there is a demand for them by a small minority of religious believers. Frankly I have no objection to religious believers setting up their own schools provided they pay the salaries of the teachers and all other expenses involved. The problem is that British taxpayers are being forced to pick up the tab and your Prime Minister ( I'm assuming you're British) is supporting them. If a Satanic cult set up a school would you, as a British taxpayer, be happy to support them?"
Agreed, let religious believers set up and pay for their own faith schools. The government has no business in this at all. (I've got a British passport, plus an Irish one ;-) mother from the south and father from the north - perhaps that's why I don't go for this either or with science and religion….a foot in both camps so to speak. Oh, dear, before that gets misunderstood - I am an atheist - been one for 20+ years. I live in SA not the UK).
Maryhelena: "I think perhaps you have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that theology is the source, the standard, of what is good or evil. I'm saying that theology contains, within itself, a potential for good and evil. Theology can be an intellectual endeavor that provides, for some people, some good, some value in their lives. On the other hand, theology, when it attempts to operate outside of a purely theological context, when it strives for a social/political expression, can be a source of evil, a source of social/political conflict."
"So, "theology contains, within itself, a potential for good and evil." You still don't explain why this statement has any meaning. Theology is allegedly an academic discipline. You might as well say that economics has, within itself, the potential for good and evil (which would actually make more sense).
OK, let me try again. I don't think theology is just the study of religion. It does set itself up to interpret scripture; it's not simple a study of historical facts about religion. Interpretation leads to development, to further advances in theological thought and meaning. Theology evolves. Theology is not just about understanding the god that religion/spirituality has devised. Theology sets itself the question is there a god at all. For instance, Hans Kung's Does God Exist? Theology seeks to interpret the spiritual/religious experience - while adding it's own twists and turns….Theology contains the potential for good and evil - as does any branch of philosophical thought. Ideas, in and of themselves, are harmless enough - ideas put into practice can become problematic. Think, for instance, of the chosen people concept, both in the old and the new testament. As an exercise in wishful thinking it is questionable but not particularly dangerous. As a social/political agenda it is most certainly dangerous.
Maryhelena: "Religion, in it's fundamental form, is simply our capacity for, and our ability, to seek spiritual values. Theology is man's attempt, a very often inadequate attempt, to give some sort of definition and meaning to our spiritual values.
"I take it that you are defining theology as the study of religion, a study which a priori accepts the basic postulates of religious belief, i.e. does not question the existence of a deity/deities? I have no problem with that definition. But I do take issue with your definition of religion: "Religion, in it's fundamental form, is simply our capacity for, and our ability, to seek spiritual values."
See the above on this point. Theology certainly does question the existence of god - especially the theistic god. Some theologians side with god other's are willing to see christianity without theism
"In its fundamental form religion is about belief that one or more gods exist and have superhuman powers. There is no rational reason to accept this belief. Do you agree?
That definition of religion is perhaps a bit outdated. My current favorite definition is this one:
"The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:
"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."
(Winston King, Encyclopedia of Religion, p 7693 - taken from Wikipedia).
'..the depth dimensions of experience' - that's a great definition of religion! While the history of religion can be beneficial, while the speculations of theology might be interesting - at the end of the day it is how we, in the 21st century, with all the advances in science and psychology, are able to understand, and articulate, the never ending story of our religious/spiritual search for meaning, for contentment and for reverence.
130. Comment #7691 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 4:07 am
Hi, JonathanThanks for your post #7485 - clearly put! So it's the muslim lobby and the christian fundamentalists who are out of the present set up. In other words the UK government is being seen to being partial to certain faith schools and not to others. Silly position for the government to have got itself into in the first place….How about a referendum on the issue of faith schools - at least that would definitely put the matter in it's proper perspective i.e. how many people actually do want the government sponsored faith schools.
132. Comment #7727 by Walter Yergen on November 19, 2006 at 7:30 am
212. Comment #7550 by Jonathan Dore on November 18, 2006 at 7:07 pm>>There may well be grounds for disturbing our equanimity about the non-existence of the supernatural -- but if there are, they have nothing to do with quantum physics.<<
There is an odd twist in your statement that comes from you, not me. I said nothing about the "supernatural" in any of my posts.
It appears to me that your equanimity is disturbed when I question your beliefs. For example --
Don't kid yourself about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The equations are exact. The quantities that are measured are not exact. Einstein thought that the equations were "spooky" because they predicted actions at a distance. See
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/quantum1.htm
And
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/
The Solvay Congress of 1927 inspired some exceedingly neat ideas pertaining to physics and the "scientific method". I like to illustrate the scientific method with "An Induction Fable" by Kenny Felder
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/scientist.html
Heisenberg's equations were derived by inductive reasoning given finite sets of data samples. Data models that are inferred by "connecting the dots" between discrete data sets can be wrong, of course. The next data set that is observed in fact might invalidate the model.
Scientists who specialize in theoretical modeling live from day to day with the hope that they don't know everything! In the case of quantum theory it appears that they are frustratingly close to knowing as much as they can know considering the tools and methodology that are available for testing their theories.
- Walt
PS. This is my last post to this topic... It appears to me that there be demons here. :-)
******
******
******
133. Comment #7744 by Richard Morgan on November 19, 2006 at 9:08 am
Having lived in France for over twenty years, I was tempted to ask, "What's all the fuss about?"Not a single eyebrow is raised when I say that I am an atheist. Well, perhaps one or two - by people who think to themselves , "So what?"
How sad for people living in America. My heart goes out to them, and not for the first time.
(I can already hear American Evangelicals saying, "Well of course, the French are a godless bunch of heathens. They even refused to helped us liberate Irak from a murderous dictator! What more proof do you need of their spiritual degradation?")
It would be good if there was a page on this site dedicated to giving moral support and advice to people who are (rightly) afraid of "coming out" about their atheism.
Having spent many years as an unhappy and frustrated "theist" during the early years of my life(I daren't say the "E" word!) I would be happy to volunteer my help in such an endeavour.
Oh, perhaps I should warn you - I don't believe in fairies either.
134. Comment #7750 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 9:24 am
AF_Comm_GuyExcellent post - much to think about here for atheists. There is much more to religion than simply supernatural beliefs of one sort or another. There is this sense of community, of social connection - a sense of togetherness. Atheism can't offer that. Hence, for many individuals, leaving religion is not simply a matter of leaving behind a theistic delusion - it very often means leaving behind a life style. Out into the great unknown with nary a hand to hold. Taking that road requires much in the way of strength of character. I think that sometimes atheists forget that being a 'seeker', being one who wants to know, is not something that concerns many people. Lots of people just want to get on with their lives and have no need for answers to questions that they have never asked in the first place!
135. Comment #7761 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 9:55 am
asdfIndeed, let people believe whatever takes their fancy - actually we can't do much about it anyway......what we can do is make sure that we put in place, in the social/political environment, some strong anti-virus 'software' .....
136. Comment #7791 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 11:47 am
SolasThe definition of 'religion' that I quoted is not mine. It is taken from the Encyclopedia of Religion. Off course, you don't have to accept it as a valid definition of religion. Wikipedia says this about 'religion'.
"There are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.
Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. Primitive religion was indistinguishable from the sociocultural acts where custom and ritual defined an emotional reality.
Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that relegate religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy."
Now, we can well debate what the correct definition of 'religion' might be - but I don't think we would find agreement. The definition is fluid - as befits something that is intrinsically bound up with both personal experience and cultural or social situations.
Striving for set definitions, for religion or for god, will get one nowhere. One would always be at the disadvantage of setting up straw men in order to knock them down. That fact is something that atheists have to come to grips with - and, as many of the reviews of TGD have shown, atheists are failing in this regard. One cannot prove that god exists and one cannot prove that god does not exist. That is the reality we face. My position is that this is no reason not to try and accommodate this fact in our view of the bigger picture i.e. the bigger picture being our social and political environment. Believers and non-believers have to find a way to live together without a constant state of battle readiness. War talk will not win in this encounter.
Regarding my comment re sacred ground. I made no contradiction. If you refer to my earlier post you will find that I have clearly stated that I differentiate between 'religion' and 'theology. Religion is sacred ground because it relates to an aspect of human nature that seeks expression in spiritual values. Theology is not sacred ground - it is an add on, it is an intellectual pastime that is as subject to intellectual progress and evolution as any other intellectual discipline. Re. The comment regarding 'coming to the table'. I was not referring to either a scientific or a political table - I was simply using 'table' more as a metaphor of existence, of allowing religion it's place as a fundamental aspect of the human experience.
Solas, thanks for the exchange. I don't think we can take this much further. We don't agree on allowing 'religion' a wide range of definitions, of understandings. Hence, we cannot proceed with an attempt at trying to seek an accommodation between religion and science. That is where my interest lies. And no, seperating religion into supernaturalist religion and Einsteinian religion, as Dawkins does, is not the answer. There is most certainly good and bad theology - but to postulate good and bad religion is nonsensical. Dawkins, of course, would rather not use the word 'religion' at all. Whether we like it or not, religion is a fact of life.
137. Comment #7794 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 11:54 am
asdf"I concur, but putting "anti-virus software" in place IS action, or doing something about it. It's absolutely necessary to combat the religious lobbyists if we wish to preserve a sane environment for our future generations. "
Indeed, go after the 'religious lobbyists' by all means - that's the thing to do - endeavour to keep theology out of the social/political arena. That's the sort of action that will, hopefully, get results.
138. Comment #7809 by Marcus on November 19, 2006 at 1:28 pm
I am an Atheist, but… one has to be on guard against all forms of mysticism - even the secular forms.Immanuel Kant's Noumena (and his followers such as Fichte and Hegel), Marxism (and it's many spin-offs), Racism, Cultural Relativism, and the Green religion of Global Warming through human activity.
If I read one more newspaper article claiming that Global Warming is set to cause everything from Third World Poverty to Woolly Mammoths in London, I think I will have to start screaming aloud in public!!!
139. Comment #7813 by walter on November 19, 2006 at 2:05 pm
reply to 'think' 7788'think' MIGHT (stressed) have a point about us 'intellectually superior' atheists.
Us atheists are fond of believing that we are smarter than creationists and ID folks. And why not? Reading creationist literature is positively flattering to our own intellects. However it is not a COMPLETELY honest assessment. These guys believe what they do for emotional reasons. It just so happens that not thinking (or not thinking very hard) gets them the results they want.(primarily I suspect a non-simian origin)
If misunderstanding an idea makes it (the idea) sound stupid. AND you want it to sound stupid for emotional or political reasons then there is NO incentive to develop your mind.
Instead of bashing our friend 'think' perhaps we can all use this opportunity to learn more about him. I'm not saying that he has anything intelligent to say but rather if we read between his lines perhaps we can gain some insight into their mentality.
142. Comment #7828 by Mark Davis on November 19, 2006 at 2:47 pm
"It is good to receive strong criticism and to admit that we, who claim to have some knowledge of God, have misrepresented him in so many ways, both in our minds and before others."Nelson,
I am in complete agreement with your above quote. What Dawkins is attempting to do in his prose is to raise our consciousness to the fact that many people do in fact claim to have absolute knowledge of God. They completely believe that their interpretation of God is correct based on the private inner revelations of the nature of God to people who lived 1000's of years ago. They had their revelations recorded in a special book also written ~2000 years ago and compliled by men as to be the absolute true word of God. Can you see how foolish it is to trust those kinds of revelations as absolute fact? In a world where there are other competing special books that also claim to contain special revelations as to the nature of God. We need to raise our consciousness to the absurdity of drawing such absolute conclusions as to the nature of the Universe from such suspect sources of information.
The world needs to be honest with itself and realize that we don't know all the answers to the nature of the Universe. We also need to be honest that these competing interpretations into the nature of God causes TREMENDOUS suffering. Think of the 4 year old girl slashed to death by Christian crusaders who was murdered because her parents believed a different set of private revelations recorded in a different book. Think of the little boy whose Dad didn't come home from work because someone believed so strongly in their special book that they wanted to fly a plane into the building. Go to the burn ward at your local children's hospital and understand that many of those children have had treatments that could help with their unspeakable suffering delayed because of the certainty one man has placed in his special book as the absolute divine source of right and wrong.
Religion is a serious problem for society and has been through-out most of human history. We need to honestly admit all the suffering religion has caused and realize how dangerous a concept it is. We need to stop drawing such definite conclusions about our world from such questionable sources of information. The reason we have so much conflict cauesed by religion is that everyone is using similar forms of flimsy information and accepting them as truth. That is a recipe for disaster.
I applaud Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others for having the courage to point out how ridiculous it is to draw such strong conclusions about the nature of life and our world from such obviously weak sources of information.
143. Comment #7832 by vega on November 19, 2006 at 2:52 pm
339. Comment #7810 by Nelson Medina on November 19, 2006 at 1:35 pm"1. When was the last time your heard Dawkins saying something *good* about any believer, if it was not only to stress immediately a very embarrassing remark? That sort of language is preachy language. You are telling the people: "Hey! We are the good guys and the rest is running into _hell_!" I don't even use that language in my homilies nowadays!"
What has this to do with anything? And I thought it was you who claim to be the good guys and the rest of us are going to hell...
"2. Then you have the "ad-hominem" arguments: "Believers are violent, evil-doers, deceiving nasty people! Beware of them!" Is it real science to put thousands of millions of people in such a bag? Can you see that something like this is done and still think: "How objective and clever we atheists are..."?"
Well Dawkins has never said this. I can't recall anyone saying this. You seem to be the one guilty putting all atheists in the same bag.
And as a preacher, I would have thought you would have a good knowledge of religious/biblical history and know it's all either made up or derived from pagan beliefs.
144. Comment #7833 by Chris on November 19, 2006 at 3:41 pm
I suffer persecution on certain forums I visit.. because I dislike religion and I make a point of it.. yet because I do that I am called an evangelist/facist, it amuses me, even other aetheists get stuck into me, Generally at worst I am a little arrogant and mostly honest.Anyway I have always thought that you could consider the purpose of religion to provide questions for scientists and philosophers.. because religious people can come up with all kinds of rubbish - and sometimes this stuff from left field can be quite thought provoking... which gives us further opportunities to provide validation in our lack of belief.
.. So you could ask I am an aetheist but if we got rid of religion who would question us and force us validate ourselves.
145. Comment #7835 by Mark Davis on November 19, 2006 at 3:42 pm
am going tell you that there is a God. Rather then look to the evidence for questions about my existence, I prefer to rely on faith and make assumptions based on something other then evidence. I refuse to admit that I do not know the complete answer to a question such as how the universe began. Instead, I choose to believe in an all powerful supernatural being whose conceptual framework is rooted in a book written in the Iron Age. I will use this book to answer this and other important philosophical questions I have about my life.Evidence is not important to me, I wish to argue for the existence of my God based on other grounds. I completely trust the inner revelations my God made to people living 1000's of years ago as authentic and true. I base this assertion not on evidence, but on my high regard for the trustworthiness of peoples inner revelations into the nature of God as they were duly recorded in history in my special book. My special book is different from all the other special books in the world in which people claim to have had visions of God. My special book was written from the experiences of people living in the South-west corner of the Arabian Peninsula during the 1st century while the inner revelations of others living in the 7th century about 200 miles to the east are obviously false. As are all other claims of divine contact with God in all of human history in any land at any time.
I believe the prophecies of the Bible have mostly come true. I do not understand how the open-endedness in the language of these prophecies which allows them to be interpreted in almost anyway is relevant. Isn't it obvious that when Deuteronomy 28:64 says, "The Lord will scatter you among the nations from one end of the earth to the other." that God divinely foresaw the scattering of the Jewish population?
I believe that when people such as Francis Collins see a frozen waterfall in the wilderness that it is in fact proof of the correctness of the doctrine of the trinity. It is perfectly reasonable and sensible that a frozen 3 pronged frozen waterfall encountered in the Cascade Mountains 25 years ago should be considered as evidence to the truth contained in a book written 2,000 years ago. I also believe anyone else who has claimed to have had a similar moving experience. As long as that experience leads them to the conclusion that the God in my special book is in fact the true God. All other experiences are plainly lies.
I also believe that you can talk to God directly. If you hear a voice in your head, or have a dream, that's Him talking to you! Well, probably. It could be Satan. Or you could be insane. Get's a little tricky there. I'd say it depends on what He tells you. Like if he tells you to sacrifice your children, that's probably not God.. wait, that's a bad example. But still, I hope you can now see how foolish you are being in not accepting what is plainly obvious. Jesus Christ was the Son of God who died for your sins on a cross and rose again from the dead 3 days later. After all my book says as many as a 100 people living in the early 1st century saw him in spirit form 3 days after he died. What more evidence do you need?
I'm an atheist but calling ourselves "brights" is exactly the kind of self congratulatory smugness that I have always found repellant in organized religion. Most belief systems object more to their own apostates than their opponents. the Church of Atheism is no different in that regard.
149. Comment #7857 by Chris on November 19, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Hi Niels,In scientific terms you are I agree 100%, we have actual means of determining truth - I worded my statement poorly I think. and yes religion is a hinderance that has little relevance to todays society.
The angle I am coming from ( i guess in a philosophic sense)is similar to the old argument how can you say something is good if you have nothing to guage it against. Therefore I'm an aetheist but religion provides me something to argue against.
More tongue in cheek than anything.
Chris
150. Comment #7879 by walter on November 19, 2006 at 6:40 pm
reply to #7866 hojuBe not deceived folks. ID is creationism in disguise!
Evolution is NOT a bundle of theories. It is a single theory which elegantly explains all the complex diversity of life.
Religious 'intellectuals', like hojo, invariably frame the evolution/creation debate in 'jihadist' terms. This is because they are too stupid too see evolutionists as anything other than 'alternate' religious fanatics. (i.e. Their minds are incapable of truly thinking the way evolutionists think and so the closest thing to introspection for them is to simply project their cave man mentality upon the opposition.)
"So why the closed mind to alternative views?"
translation: "Why the closed mind to creationist views?"
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
101. Comment #7593 by Mal on November 18, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Jeanne GillIf you have somehow found the attention span to stay with this thread, can you tell me if you agree with the statement "God is perfect"?