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 251 - 273 of 273 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers252. Comment #12004 by Daneurl on December 9, 2006 at 7:07 am
To Loren Petrich:I think I wrote that in a wrong way. Bertrand Russell fell under the spell that there might be "something else" not religion or God as such but just "something", not heaven or hell but doubt?
You're right I can't prove it, but you can't prove existence or inexistence can you? And neither can Dawkins, in his chapter on memes in the selfish gene I thought he was waxing evangelical for a while, Dawkins is a scientist but not everything can be proved by science. Epistemological arguements have been raging for centuries about "empiricism", and other forms of knowlegde that Dawkins is adhering to, so he is putting himself in a corner, what do you expect? He is defending his postion from religious sycophants and probably fed up with it. I am not religious and I agree with his 5 points above that started this "blog", I find that on the whole many people are very "fanatical" (black and white) and should reason more. However, I stated my view wrongly and you rightly put me in my place, but I have to say overall from viewing some arguments here I do not agree with dawkins with his "absolutism" towards atheism. Science has given us boundaries but there are still so many questions that are left undiscovered, what gets me is that people still think that the world is "solved" just because science has one theory about life on earth? How absurd. I think science will change and evolve into something else in the future and Dawkins will be seen as one of its "fundamentalist" progenitors, or one of those "silly" ones who thought they knew it all. Wait for physics and philosophy to catch up with the "child" of biology. Science is the "opium of the masses" at the moment, hence what can we expect?
Other Comments by Daneurl
253. Comment #12497 by levana on December 12, 2006 at 7:42 am
Being an atheist shouldn't need to rely on science only. Having to accept you come from the original sin - hence your status of fallen being as core of your condition should be repulsive enough, philosophically and morally.Other Comments by levana
254. Comment #12502 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 12, 2006 at 8:58 am
I'm an Atheist, But......Why is it when we admit it, the believers stick their noses in the air and want us to give them EVERY answer to every question man could dream of?!
Okay, you say "I'm a Theist, but.."
To which I reply, "...But, who created God?"
Don't give me that, he's-always-been-there lark! What was he doing BEFORE Time? Sitting in a vacuum, bored? Hmmm. I'll go and make some inferior beings and scare the hell out of them with a set of rules. I'll call it the Bible. And I'll have a wee bit of fun, by thinking up hundreds of horrible ways they can suffer and die.
Thanks God. You're the best. I hope you don't mind if I don't bow down to your obviously NOT worthy supreme status.
For the man above who says he has trouble becoming a full Atheist. DON'T. My life is much better since jettisoning this religious rubbish. Sunday is for D.I.Y and sport. Not for bowing down in a cold church and hearing doom and gloom.
Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief
255. Comment #13726 by MadMcMax on December 19, 2006 at 7:59 am
I am an atheist, but ............ It's all about control, keeping the hands on the money and making self-important insularity socially acceptable. Not one of us - go live in that scary place outside.I beleieve it is entirely possible to live a "Christian" life, or at least a life according to Christian principles while being an atheist.
There are plenty professed Christians who act like hooligans but still go to Church on a Sunday.
Other Comments by MadMcMax
256. Comment #14443 by nilanshu on December 22, 2006 at 1:20 pm
"I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay."Yes, I am an atheist, but my religion is more than a belief or disbelief in God. It's not exactly that I don't believe in God, it's just that I don't bother about the concept of a Creator. It's the Creation I interact with and I cherish.
Unlike most other popular religions, my religion also includes atheists. My religion has the unique distinction of being flexible and just enforces common social values that I use in my day-to-day life including even my professional life.
1. Positivity - Bhakti Yoga
2. Right Action - Karma Yoga
3. Rational Thinking - Rāja Yoga
4. Knowledge Seeking - Jρāna Yoga
Religion is not necessarily an evil we need to fight against, but it is the literal translation of religious books which is an anachronism in the modern days which we need to reject.
Although most violence in the current world, and I am talking about terrorism here, uses the pretext of religion, it is not religion rather discrimination and oppression that is the cause of this violence. The initial purpose of all religion was always to unify and promote common ethical and social values among a group of people as opposed to dividing and segregating humans as it is doing in the modern world.
Other Comments by nilanshu
257. Comment #14512 by Dingli on December 22, 2006 at 11:08 pm
But Im an atheist!Other Comments by Dingli
258. Comment #14517 by mspatriot9 on December 23, 2006 at 12:38 am
When someone asks me why I don't believe in god, amusingly it's always with some inlaid presumption that I actually DO believe in god, but I'm pissed off at him because I never got the pony or some BS. It's as if there's a piece of their brains that malfunction to the comprehension that it's entirely possible to not buy the god thing at all - so when someone asks me why, usually what I ask in return is why should I?I don't go in asking them to prove it, just ask them instead, *Why should I?* and then wait for the stock answers as to why I need to believe in god...
Because...don't you want to go to Heaven when you die? Don't you want your sins to be forgiven? Without god you'd be some baseless animal without morals, etc.
My response then is to laugh (AT them) and in a somewhat mocking fashion explain that those aren't good enough reasons, actually, because I'm not that useless of an individual that I can't get through a day without a crutch of some sort.
Why do you need it? Are you that pitiful and useless that you can't function in a single day otherwise? If not, then you don't need it either. If so, then you're probably not fit to reside among society anyway and will probably end up locked up before it's over with.
Other Comments by mspatriot9
259. Comment #15051 by Robin Allott on December 28, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Darwin on God, religion and moralityDawkins is a Darwinian heretic!
Some remarks (condensed) from the Descent of Man and elsewhere. (It is now possible to survey the whole range of his views on the Cambridge website.
GOD
There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent
God. The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the
universe.
If we include under the term "religion " the belief in unseen or spiritual agencies, the case is
wholly different; for this belief seems to be almost universal with the less civilised races.
The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods. The same high
mental faculties which first led man to believe in unseen spiritual agencies, then ultimately in monotheism.
The highest form of religion - the grand idea of God hating sin and loving
righteousness - was unknown during primeval times.
The ennobling belief in God is not universal with man, and the belief in active spiritual agencies naturally follows
from his other mental powers.
The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man.
Great lawgivers, the founders of beneficent religions, great philosophers and discoverers in science, aid the progress of mankind in a far higher degree by their works than by leaving a numerous progeny.
The awakening of the nations of Europe from the dark ages is a still more perplexing problem. At this early period almost all the men of a gentle nature, those given to meditation or culture of the mind, had no refuge except in the bosom of the Church which demanded celibacy.
MORALITY
The other self-regarding virtues, which do not obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have
never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilised nations.
The greatest intemperance with savages is no reproach. Their utter licentiousness, not to mention unnatural crimes, is something astounding. The chief causes of the low morality of savages, as judged by our standard, insufficient powers of reasoning, so that the bearing of many virtues, especially of the self-regarding virtues, on the general welfare of the tribe is not recognised. Savages, for instance, fail to trace the multiplied evils consequent on a want of temperance, chastity, &c. the weak power of self-command; for this power has not been strengthened through long-continued, perhaps inherited, habit, instruction and religion.
The hatred of indecency, which appears to us so natural as to be thought innate, and which is so valuable an aid to
chastity, is a modern virtue, appertaining exclusively to civilised life.
With civilised nations, as far as an advanced standard of morality, and an increased number of fairly well-endowed
men are concerned, natural selection apparently effects but little; though the fundamental social instincts were
originally thus gained. I have already said enough, whilst treating of the lower races, on the causes which lead to the
advance of morality, namely, [inter alia] religious feelings.
It is apparently a truer and more cheerful view that progress has been much more general than retrogression; that man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps, from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge, morals, and religion.
In regard to the moral qualities, some elimination of the worst dispositions is always in progress even in the most
civilised nations. Malefactors are executed, or imprisoned for long periods, so that they cannot freely transmit their
bad qualities. Melancholic and insane persons are confined, or commit suicide. Violent and quarrelsome men often
come to a bloody end. Restless men who will not follow any steady occupation - and this relic of barbarism is a great
check to civilisation - emigrate to newly-settled countries, where they prove useful pioneers. Intemperance is so
highly destructive. . Profligate women bear few children, and profligate men rarely marry; both suffer from disease.
If the various checks specified, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and
otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will
retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. It is impossible not bitterly to regret, but whether
wisely is another question, the rate at which man tends to increase ; for this leads in in civilised nations to abject
poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent.
Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect
that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our
higher and lower impulses will be I severe, and virtue will be triumphant.
AGNOSTIC NOT ATHEIST
Mr. Darwin begs me to say that he receives so many letters, that he cannot answer them all. "He considers that the
theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons
have different definitions of what they mean by God."
I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. .
Whether the existence of a conscious God can be proved from the existence of the so-called laws of nature (i.e., fixed
sequence of events) is a perplexing subject, on which I have often thought, but cannot see my way clearly. The
mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.
Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in
admitting evidence. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can be hardly denied that its perfection
depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories. The belief in a God who cares,
is an immense safeguard for morality.
Dr. Aveling tried to show that the terms "Agnostic" and "Atheist" were practically equivalent. My father's replies
implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic.
I see no impossibility to God. Neither do I think He requires us to make out His nature clearly to our understandings, indeed Christ has told us we cannot, and I am content to wait.
A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.
Other Comments by Robin Allott
260. Comment #15064 by DavidJMH on December 28, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Robin Allott writes:"I see no impossibility to "God". Neither do I think "He" requires us to make out "His" nature clearly to our understandings, indeed "Christ" has told us we cannot and I am content with that.
It is precisely this type of belief in unsubstantiated and unthinking dogma that RD and the whole athiest cause are trying to illuminate. Simply because you are content to believe without question does not a "God", "He", "Him", or "Christ" make.
Other Comments by DavidJMH
261. Comment #15093 by MelM on December 28, 2006 at 10:27 pm
"...but religion is one of the glories of human culture."Translation: "Mindless prattle based on faith is one of the glories of human culture."
It would be funny if it wern't for the fact that these "glories of human culture" are trying to wreak natural science and blow up our cities.
It is "human culture" though. People sat around and made this stuff up. All the holy tales and holy books: they just made it all up! That's something to ponder!
Thanks for the post; I hadn't noticed this "I'm an atheist, BUT..." phenomenon and it looks like a big deal issue.
Other Comments by MelM
262. Comment #15117 by Robin Allott on December 29, 2006 at 2:51 am
DavidJMHYou may not have noticed.
These are not my views but those of Charles Darwin extracted from The Descent of Man, his letters,his autobiography and other writings
I personally do not necessarily agree with them.
I listed them mainly to show how far Richard Dawkins has deviated from or left behind Darwin's own views.
Other Comments by Robin Allott
263. Comment #15256 by Adrian on December 30, 2006 at 2:52 am
As Don say in Comment #7272 in response to Richard's, 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? Don says:In the meantime, the question about how we replace God with awe of nature is a valid one, in my opinion and although we should and have made a start to addressing this, its something that we're going to have to keep returning to in the short and medium term
I think we are overlooking one aspect to this argument about 'replacing' God with Science.
I can receive pleasure - rapture even - by obtaining an orgasm in the 'missionary' position, but that does not suggest I should not also obtain pleasure - more or less - from other positions - or even masturbation. I can also receive comfort when I contemplate with rapture the wonders of the universe that scientific discovery has revealed to me. But maybe I am one of many millions of shallow thinkers (this is not condescension, simply fact) who also finds solace in religious rapture, and who is to say I need to replace that with anything? It does not require intellectual conjuring for me to incorporate both sources into my belief system, merely intellectual indolence.
By putting myself in the above paragraph, to illustrate where shallow thinking can be disarmingly comfortable, I perpetrate a poetic dishonesty so as to lessen the impact of condescension. But again, as Dom says:
It may be patronising and condescending, but that may not stop it from being true.
Other Comments by Adrian
264. Comment #15419 by Robin Allott on December 31, 2006 at 6:37 am
My Comment 698 set out Darwin's views on the relation of religion (he was an unaggressive agnostic), morality and evolution in the The Descent of Man and other writings.DARWIN ON MORALITY (greatly condensed):
"The other self-regarding virtues, which do not obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilised nations. Savages fail to trace the multiplied evils consequent on a want of temperance, chastity, &c [and on] the weak power of self-command, for this power has not been strengthened through long-continued, perhaps inherited, habit, instruction and religion. The hatred of indecency, which appears to us so natural as to be thought innate, and which is so valuable an aid to chastity, is a modern virtue, appertaining exclusively to civilised life.
With civilised nations, as far as an advanced standard of morality, and an increased number of fairly well-endowed
men are concerned, natural selection apparently effects but little. I have already said enough on the causes which lead to the advance of morality, namely, [amongst others] religious feelings. Progress has been much more general than retrogression; man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps, from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge, morals, and religion. We may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be I severe, and virtue will be triumphant." If his ghost could return, it would be interesting to hear Darwin's views on the present state of society and societies.
SCIENTIFIC MORALITY?
On the publication of The Origin of Species, scholars believed that for the first time a really scientific ethics could be erected. John Morley went so far as to say "the next great task of Science is to create a religion for humanity". Science can be seen as a system of increasing rationality, as a direct influence on morality via technology, as the means for exploring the physiological and neurological substructure of morality, and even as in itself a system of international moral values -- to wit, the scientific virtues of truth, patience, industry, clarity, prudence, open-mindedness, but Science is not enough. Gesturing to the Zeitgeist is not enough.
If we no can longer rely on ritualised religious formulations, but morality is still important, is there any alternative rational basis for a modern morality? An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development. Morality is a key factor in the success of human groups in competition or co-existence with each other.A group's moral code represents an increasingly rational pattern of behaviour derived from the collective experience of the group handed down from generation to generation. Group selection is a controversial idea for animal evolution but it is inescapable in accounting for human evolution under the influence of language and the accumulation of cultural patterns. Morality has an objective physiological and neurological basis in so far as it exists to moderate the expression of the array of genetically-derived emotional patterns. Emotions represent the combination of action tendencies (neural motor programs) with (physiologically-derived) affective concomitants. The relation between emotion, empathy and morality is important. Empathy (a special form of perception which we are now coming to understand neurologically) has a key role both in the formation and cohesion of human groups and in the observance within groups of a moral code. Ultimately observance of moral rules depends on recognition by each individual of an integrating purpose in his life. In so far as the moral code is directed towards achieving this integrating purpose, morality for the individual becomes rational and can be objective for the society.
Other Comments by Robin Allott
265. Comment #17882 by barney_bonehead on January 17, 2007 at 8:58 am
I'm an atheist, BUT...only because I'm a pantheist. It works out. I get the best and worst of both worlds, I guess.I also think something very much like a an immensely powerful personal "God" who takes an active interest in human affairs exists. It's fine to be an atheist, but it's unreasonable to expect everyone to stop believing in anything like that, period, because (like Mr. Dawkins himself says) it's a scientific endeavor. He may choose not to search for God on grounds that "God doesn't exist" -- likewise I could sit in a room, refuse to go outside, and claim that the sky doesn't exist. There are those who believe in God for the sake of humanity's progression.
Other Comments by barney_bonehead
266. Comment #18835 by mjbogdanov on January 23, 2007 at 5:49 am
"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!"Maybe, Maybe not. Ponder:
When these stories are interpreted, though, not as reports of historic fact, but as merely imagined episodes projected onto history, and when they are recognized, then, as analogous to like projections produced elsewhere, in China, India, and Yucatαn, the import becomes obvious; namely, that although false and to be rejected as accounts of physical history, such universally cherished figures of the mythic imagination must represent facts of the mind: "facts of the mind made manifest in a fiction of matter," as my friend the late Maya Deren once phrased the mystery. And whereas it must, of course, be the task of the historian, archaeologist, and prehistorian to show that the myths are as facts untrue -- that there is no one Chosen People of God in this multiracial world, no Found Truth to which we all must bow, no One and Only True Church -- it will be more and more, and with increasing urgency, the task of the psychologist and comparative mythologist not only to identify, analyze, and interpret the symbolized "facts of the mind," but also to evolve techniques for retaining these in health and, as the old traditions of the fading past dissolve, assist mankind to a knowledge and appreciation of our own inward, as well as the world's outward, orders of fact.
Joseph Campbell
Other Comments by mjbogdanov
267. Comment #24001 by Seeker36 on March 4, 2007 at 4:47 am
On Point 5 of this article: Here is where i have to depart from Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris's point of view. Philosophically, i completely concur. Thinking is something that human beings urgently require to learn. However, the emotional tone is one of superiority and hatred. There's no respect or dignity given to the religious person and putting myself in the religious person's shoes i would just feel angery and insulted, rather than inspired to rexamine my beliefs critically. The underlying problem is that Dr Dawkins treats religious people as children who need to be told how(What) to think, yet changes in beliefs, especially those with a strong attachment components can only come from a position of adult responsibility. How can Dr Dawkins Expect people to be adult enough to think for themselves if he continually underlines and enforces the idea that because they are religious they are irrational and incapable of critical thinking? Impasse will continute under such circumstances, as will intolerance and hatred.Chris.
Other Comments by Seeker36
268. Comment #24005 by ATeacherReally on March 4, 2007 at 6:00 am
Chris, I don't know if "insulted" is the right word for how "believers" feel when they read these ideas.I would say "confirmed in their beliefs" was more how they felt. The fact that Dawkins has to resort to so harsh a style assures them they were right all along, you know.
As a long-term teacher of religion to young people, I find there is nothing they doubt more than bluster. In fact, I always try to be as low-key as possible in my presentations. Then they use their own thoughts to track along with me and wind up much more convinced.
I don't know why Dawkins doesn't know this...
Other Comments by ATeacherReally
269. Comment #54449 by NewSkeptic on July 7, 2007 at 7:22 am
I'm an atheist, BUT ... I cannot tell that to enough people!Other Comments by NewSkeptic
270. Comment #79671 by LAL on October 18, 2007 at 5:55 am
I haven't figured out why "faith" (loosely defined as hanging on to beliefs that have no evidence whatsoever to support them) is considered a good thing.Lu
Other Comments by LAL
271. Comment #79987 by Ludovician217 on October 19, 2007 at 1:10 pm
This column by Dawkins is little more than a syntheiss of ad hominem("If someone says 'I'm an atheist, but...' dismiss them entirely") and strawman arguments about what form these objections "invariably" take.Other Comments by Ludovician217
272. Comment #79998 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Ludovician217I think you have missed the point of the column. Dawkins does not seek to refute any of the arguements but merely highlight the use of the phrase 'i'm an atheist but'.
The phrase is entirely superfluous to any arguement and therefore i beleive, is only added as a prefix to any argument in order to deceive the reader (ipse dixit, to follow your flashy latin terminology). You will find few atheists feel the need to open with this phrase as their arguments make their position clear.
Other Comments by newskin
273. Comment #80673 by Ludovician217 on October 22, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Point taken, but nonetheless I'm not convinced Dawkins is interested in meaningful dialogue with atheists who disagree with his "religion is evil" generalization.Other Comments by Ludovician217
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it."
Oscar Wilde
"Scientific truth is too beautiful to be sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or money. Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using Beethoven for commercial jingles."
Richard Dawkins
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
David Brooks
"No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth."
Richard Dawkins
"The kindly God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us and sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight -- that God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything [that] a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must either be turned into a symbol for something less concrete or abandoned altogether."
Daniel Dennett
Other Recommended Reading
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
The Quotable Atheist
Jack Huberman
Under the Banner of Heaven
Jon Krakauer
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
251. Comment #11041 by walter on December 2, 2006 at 9:58 pm
The reason people of science seem incapable or unwilling to explain things in laymen terms is because it's often either impossible or would simply tax too much of the patience of both the scientist AND the layperson. If it WERE possible then the sciences would really be no more specialized than common sense.